U.S.-Korean Relations and the Younger Generation

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

Remarks to the Graduate School of Interpretation and Translation
at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
October 24, 2007

Thank you, Professor Kwak Joong-chol, for your kind introduction. GSIT is very fortunate to have you as its Dean and to have President Park Chul as the University’s President. As Korean foreign language scholars who earned your graduate degrees from France and Spain and who preside over Korea’s most renowned university for foreign languages, you truly embody Korea’s globalization efforts. Our Embassy benefits from your fine work, too, as a number of our interpreters are graduates of GSIT – and they are excellent. My only complaint is they are too modest.

I give many speeches on the topic of U.S.-Korean relations to many different audiences. Despite differences in tone and emphasis, they all share a common theme: the relationship between the United States and the Republic of Korea is vital and enduring. In fact, it is strengthening even as it changes. My special task in discussing this theme with you today is to tell you why I think young Koreans such as yourselves should believe this is true. Moreover, because I suspect a good number of you already believe this is true, I want to help you with articulating why you are right.

For those of you specializing in English interpretation, you may have heard the phrase, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” I propose we discuss the vitality of the U.S.-ROK relationship by taking a look at some of its constituent parts. In so doing, I think we’ll find that this axiom is indeed true when applied to our bilateral alliance: the strength of the U.S.-ROK relationship transcends the sum of its separate defining elements.

Safeguarding Korea’s Security and Prosperity: The Military Dimension

The first part of the alliance I want to talk to you about is our military relationship. Many of the young men in the audience today may have experienced our alliance first-hand through your military service.

Although strictly speaking the alliance dates back to 1953, when our two countries signed the Mutual Defense Treaty, the modern story starts with the U.S. and its World War II allies bringing freedom from Japanese domination to Korea in 1945. In the aftermath of the war and the division of the peninsula by the Soviet Union and its allies in Pyongyang, the United States took on the challenge of countering their attempt to control the entire peninsula. Following the North Korean invasion and the outbreak of the Korean War, the U.S. military returned – and stayed – to defend all Koreans’ freedom.

The fundamental objective of our military alliance has always been to keep the peace on the Korean peninsula. It has succeeded brilliantly for more than half a century. This long period of peace and security provided the necessary space for Korea to transform from an impoverished nation struggling to bind up the wounds of a brutal civil war into a thriving democracy and the world’s twelfth largest economy.

Whether the military alliance is still vital today and will be in the future is perhaps best answered by asking other questions first. Is there still any threat to the security of the Republic of Korea? Does our alliance deter such a threat more than the ROK military forces would acting alone? And if in the future the threat of North Korean aggression or provocation were to be removed, would there still be a purpose – or for those of you studying French, a raison d’être – for the U.S.-Korea military alliance?

I think the answer to all these questions is yes. First, the threat: The size and positions of North Korea’s conventional weapons and troops, its missile capabilities and its nuclear weapons programs should be matters of concern to all South Koreans. I’m sure you all remember that, in July 2006, the DPRK successfully test-launched several short- and medium-range missiles capable of devastating not only Seoul, but cities and towns across the Korean Peninsula (and even parts of Japan). They also launched, with less success, a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, potentially capable of reaching the United States. These tests serve as ominous reminders of Kim Jong-il’s ability to inflict horrific damage on both our countries.

Second, the ROK-U.S. alliance as a deterrent: For over 50 years, the ROK-U.S. alliance has stood firm as a guarantee to jointly defend South Korea against possible North Korean aggression. Our alliance has developed from a one-sided collaboration between military forces of greatly disproportionate capacities into an unusually close military-to-military partnership that is led by a Combined Forces Command.

We are now in the process of advancing the relationship toward a more balanced sharing of responsibility. Our mutually agreed plan is to shift wartime operational control to the ROK military over the next five years. The Strategic Transfer Plan, which will ensure that the transfer of wartime control does no harm to our combined deterrent capability or to the U.S. commitment to defend South Korea, came into being at the request of the Korean government, which was responding to the Korean people’s demand for a more equal partnership. It also reflects our recognition of Korea’s ever-improving military capabilities and its increasingly influential status among the world’s major industrialized nations. The transition of operational control (or OPCON) and the U.S. military’s move to its new location in Pyeongtaek will make our alliance more sustainable in the years to come.

Third, looking ahead to a Korean peninsula where the main threat to South Korea does not come from across the DMZ, we should say first of all that we are not there yet. North Korea still needs to make the strategic decision to denuclearize, and beyond that, to carry out confidence-building measures that will reduce and eventually remove the military threat. Even in such a situation, the United States would continue to regard its twin alliances with the ROK and Japan as pillars of security for Northeast Asia. Northeast Asian security is a subject that the Six-Party partners have just begun to discuss, so we can expect to see more on this issue soon.

Another role for the alliance is in global countermeasures to terrorism. The September 11 terrorist attacks were a clear message that people from all nations who value freedom and whose democratic governments protect that freedom could be victims. In fact, 28 Koreans died at the hands of the terrorists on 9/11 in the United States, more than any other country except the U.S. and the United Kingdom. And, as we have shared your anguish to see, Korean civilians have fallen prey to terrorist violence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers and presidents, is often quoted as having said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Though he didn’t actually say this – Wendell Phillips, an American abolitionist and advocate for Native Americans did – the famous quotation has come to refer to national defense in today’s world, and no nation should ever assume that because of its friendliness or neutrality that it will remain safe from all threats. The recent discovery of terrorist plots in Germany and Denmark underscores the need for vigilance.

Six-Party Talks: The Political Dimension

Clearly, one of our most compelling mutual challenges today is in dealing with the North Korean nuclear threat. The United States’ and South Korea’s active cooperation to address this challenge, leading in turn to significant progress in the Six Party Talks, is another example of the vitality of our alliance.

After a great deal of preparation, the latest plenary meeting of the Six Parties concluded last month in Beijing. Having already met the commitments of phase one of the February 13 Agreement, the Six Parties established a detailed plan of second-phase actions under which the DPRK is to disable the nuclear facilities at its Yongbyon reactor and declare all of its nuclear-related programs by the end of this year. Earlier this week a team of experts returned from the DPRK, where they were working to advance this process.

When implemented, these actions will effectively end the DPRK’s production of plutonium and bring the Six-Party process into its final phase, when we intend to irreversibly rid the Korean Peninsula of all North Korean nuclear activity and weapons.

As President Bush has emphasized, we are fully prepared to sign a permanent peace agreement in cooperation with the Republic of Korea, DPRK and China and establish normalized relations with the DPRK – provided that North Korea abandons all of its nuclear weapons and programs in a verifiable way. Now is the time for the United States, Korea and our other partners to speak in concert so that the North Korean leadership understands without a doubt that if it hopes to join the international community, it must take the strategic decision to denuclearize.

Consistent with the concept of a Northeast Asian regional security structure, the United States and Korea, as well as Japan, have common interests in promoting greater regional cooperation and integration, and in encouraging China to continue on the path of becoming vested in the stability and prosperity of the region. In fact, when they met in Sydney in September, President Roh and President Bush discussed building a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism that can promote stability and cooperation in the region over the long term. This could become possible if the Six Party Talks’ goals are met. In fact, the Six Party Talks themselves could serve as the basis for a new multilateral mechanism to promote stability and cooperation in Northeast Asia.

The political alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States is also founded on our compatible democratic political systems. This makes mutual understanding possible in ways that do not happen between democracies and non-democracies. The primaries for Korea’s political parties leading up to this presidential election have had many bumps in the road, but in terms of the democratic process, they have been very successful and have deepened Korea’s democratic institutions. The debate thus far has focused on issues and policies, and nomination processes have either been transparent or have been made transparent through uncovering irregularities. Korea’s independent legislature and judiciary, active NGO community, and balanced and active press are features of democracy that our two countries also have in common.

The Economic Dimension

I’d like to talk to you now about economic relations between the United States and Korea. While we’ve long had an important and growing economic relationship between our two countries – the United States has been the most important export market for Korean companies – we recently concluded a free trade agreement that will take that economic relationship to a new level. The Korea-U.S. FTA, or KORUS FTA, will give Korea and the U.S. privileged access to each other’s markets. It will help boost economic growth in both our countries, and help us both compete more effectively with other economies in the region, like China and Japan. This will also create a strong economic pillar to the U.S.-Korea partnership, to stand alongside our close security alliance.

I am sure you have heard that the KORUS FTA, as it is known, is a comprehensive, high standards FTA that will eliminate tariffs on virtually all trade between our two countries – U.S. wine, Korean cars, U.S. industrial equipment, Korean electronics, U.S. and Korean software traded over the Internet, and virtually all other products. What is not so well known is that the FTA is also designed to promote investment between our countries – by reducing the formal barriers to investment, and also by creating a more business-friendly environment for investors. Indeed, I think that, since Korean products already have very good access to the U.S. market – U.S. tariff levels are only about one-third that of Korean tariffs – one of the main benefits of the FTA for Korea will be to make Korea more attractive to foreign investment that might otherwise go to other countries in the region. Frankly, in recent years Korea has not really attracted as much foreign investment as you would expect for an economy of its size.

The FTA lifts most of the remaining restrictions on foreign investment in Korea, offers greater transparency and protection of intellectual property rights for foreign investors, and provides world-class protections to foreign investors from expropriation. All of this will make Korea much more attractive to foreign investors, who will bring world-class businesses here and, as we’re beginning to see, start to look at Korea as a regional hub for the Northeast Asia region, since after the FTA is implemented, Korea will have a better investment climate than either Japan or China.

The result? The Korean Government’s own think tanks estimate that the provisions of the FTA will lead to two to three billion dollars more in foreign investment in Korea each year for the next decade and to the creation of 340,000 new jobs. And I can’t think of any group that is better positioned to benefit from these new jobs related to foreign investment than professionals with strong foreign language skills, like those of you here today.

The main challenge for KORUS FTA, at this point, is ratification in both our national legislatures and quick entry-into-force, so that our citizens and our businesses can start enjoying the benefits. I am pleased that the Korean government has already submitted the FTA to the National Assembly. I’m told that the polls show that between 60 and 70 percent of the Korean public support the KORUS FTA – they understand the benefits it will bring, and how it will prevent Korea from being “sandwiched” between China and Japan. So I am optimistic that ratification by the National Assembly may go forward soon, and perhaps before President Roh leaves office.

The situation in the U.S. is a little more challenging. We are only now starting the public debate on the FTA that Korea had last year. The experience here in Korea was that the FTA opponents got out very quickly and aggressively with their message, and then as the public learned more about the agreement, they came to support it. We’re still at the first step in the United States; a few vocal opponents of the FTA are still dominating the debate. But the business community strongly supports this FTA, and I’m confident that as more Americans learn of all the benefits it will generate – for our economies, and for the partnership between our two countries – we will have the votes necessary to ratify the agreement.

Recently the U.S. International Trade Commission released an analysis of the FTA’s potential impact that said the agreement is likely to increase GDP in the U.S. by over ten billion dollars – significantly more than all other FTAs we’ve signed recently. And this is based solely on an analysis of the effect of tariff reductions, without estimating the additional benefit from the removal of non-tariff barriers. So the ITC’s assessment should help reinforce the case for ratification in the United States.

Another thing that would help reinforce the case for ratification of the FTA will be the quick reopening of the Korean market to U.S. beef. U.S beef is not just delicious, but it’s safe and affordable. Millions of Americans eat U.S. beef in the United States each week, as do the hundred thousand Korean students living in the United States, and many of the over one million Korean visitors to the United States each year. When we get U.S. beef into Korea, it is quickly bought up by eager consumers; it’s clear the majority of Korean consumers want to be able to buy affordable, safe U.S. beef for their families, but a small handful of activists is trying to raise safety concerns as an excuse to keep the market closed to imports, and continue to force Korean consumers to pay the highest prices in the world for beef.

As you may know, in May, the World Organization for Animal Health, after an exhaustive review of the latest science, determined that the United States has in place the appropriate safeguards against BSE that enable us to safely trade U.S. beef and beef products. We had a few complications with our last beef agreement, with some bone-in beef being accidentally shipped to Korea, which wasn’t consistent with the old agreement. That’s regrettable, but it’s important to note that the bone-in U.S. beef shipped here was perfectly healthy, under both OIE and U.S. guidelines, and that the beef was approved for sale in the U.S. and many other countries.

What this demonstrates is that we need to come up with a new beef agreement that reflects international science. We’re pleased that President Roh has publicly expressed his interest in doing just that. I hope we can resolve this issue soon. Not only would it help reduce the cost of living for Korean consumers, but it would also help ease the ratification of the FTA in the U.S. Congress. Many U.S. legislators are looking at beef as a test case of whether Korea is going to live up to its commitments to provide open markets to foreign goods, or if it will let a few radical voices dominate the debate and keep the market closed. Getting safe, affordable U.S. beef back into the Korean market will be win-win for Korean consumers and U.S. beef producers. And once we’ve got that taken care of, I’m confident we’ll be able to move the FTA, which is such a tremendously important agreement for both our countries, forward to ratification.

Strong People-to-People Ties: The Consular Dimension

Nowhere is the vitality of our bilateral relationship more apparent than in the people-to-people ties between Korea and the United States. Our longstanding alliance of friendship finds much of its strength from the personal and enduring bonds between Americans and Koreans. This is part of what the scholar Joseph Nye calls soft power, and it is a power that flows between us in both directions.

People-to-people ties have flourished because of the long list of values we share as Koreans and Americans. We are both direct, adaptable, entrepreneurial, and competitive. We believe in the value of hard work and we share the desire to improve ourselves through education.

More than 135,000 Koreans were studying or on exchange programs in the United States in U.S. government fiscal year 2006, more than from any other country. The majority of Korean professors teaching in Korea did their graduate work in the United States. Although this statistic applies to neither Professor Kwak nor President Park, I note President Park taught at Harvard University for a year, which I think we can agree gives President Park a pretty good tie to American academia, too.

Koreans travel to the United States in great numbers, and over 96 percent of Koreans who apply receive visas. Korea’s likely inclusion in the Visa Waiver Program – which could happen perhaps as early as late 2008 or early 2009 – would facilitate the travel of Koreans to the United States even more.  There is still work to be done by both governments, including the introduction of biometric e-passports by the Korean government, to achieve Korean inclusion in the VWP. While those of you with your sights set on careers as English translators would not be able to take advantage of the VWP to study in the U.S. without a visa, I hope that by the time you graduate from Hankuk you can celebrate with a visa-free tour of America!

Conclusion

I would like to conclude by bringing us back to my initial proposition that the U.S.-ROK Alliance is greater than the sum of its parts. The “parts” we have discussed each add a dimension to the strength of our bilateral relationship. When taken together, we see a relationship with military, intrapersonal, political, and economic ties to rival those of any bilateral alliance in history. However, as we stand together at the threshold of major achievements that could bring both peace and prosperity to the Korean Peninsula and further strengthen the alliance between our two countries, there is no better time for us to acknowledge that our relationship truly is much greater than the sum of its parts.

It is also a relationship that will continue to evolve. As interpreters and translators, you may very well be at the forefront of the events that will mark the development of our bilateral relationship. I hope you enjoy the experience as much as I have.