their own way of keeping records. we are in the process now of trying to lead that and standardize that within the department. so if we're successful within the next two or three years, n conceivably we could take a hotline complaint, something we do about 17,000 times a year, and those complaints are essentially triaged and we look for the responsible ig to answer the question that comes in on the complaint. often those complaints are sent to the military services or sent to other agencies within the department of defense. then it goes through a rekeying or recapturing of data that we have entered or captured

electronically, then it is sent to another system. we've got in the department -- the army, the navy, the air force. so we've got inherent inefficiencies in some of that. we're to the point of being able to transmit an entire case file with one key stroke, it is going to be a big deal for us. those are the kinds of things we're looking at efficiency wise. we have some of the same efforts going on in our criminal investigative data -- or criminal investigative case management system, as well as an audit. so i think there are many opportunities to be more efficient through the expanded use of technology. and most of that i'll find is inner operability, even within the department of defense. for us to be able to rapidly exchange data with another office is, i think, throughout the government is a key challenge and we've got that just within the department of defense, just within the ig

discipline within the department we see it. so you can imagine how rampant it is throughout government. [ inaudible question ] >> my staff, i have about 1,540 federal civilians. about 100 contractors. then about 30 or so military officers and ncos that are assigned to us. >> i have approximately 725, so about half of what mr. rymer's staff is. but to answer the question as far as what the future holds, i think one of the things that is going to be with us for the foreseeable future is a declining budget environment. frankly, i think that is an opportunity for the ig community to step up. there's always this old adage about doing more with less, which really is simply a bromide unless you can actually tell people how it is that they can do more with less. that's where the ig comes in, to be able to suggest efficiencies,

to cut out waste, to do the kinds of things that are the ig's bread and butter i think is actually going to make the ig more important in a declining budget environment than it would otherwise be. then the other thing i think is the rate of change is going to continue to increase. so continual learning and continual improvement of what mr. rymer talked about with regard to processes that are in place. always look at your processes to figure out whether or not you can improve them. and with your personnel. you have to keep training them because in five years, i have no idea what the future will hold, but it is good to have folks who are trained to be able to adapt to the change in circumstances as we see them. >> both of you have a sense of experience and oversight in your careers from a regular performance audit, external audit. you also have extensive experience in the financial services sector dealing with fraud, abuse, waste.

as the war on terror evolves over time and there is more and more money being moved along electronically, how do you see that impacting your oversight responsibilities with the inspector general? >> i think a great deal of that speaks to what john was talking about. first of all, it is having folks that understand those systems and how those processes work. so professional competency is a big deal if we don't have the right staff. we won't be able to track that. it is a complicated matter. i think we have built not just for tracking money but we are much more reliant now on technology within the criminal investigative units and our audit units than we have been in the past. so it's being able to keep up with the technology to the best you can. >> and also i think auditing the

agency is within your pursue to make sure they are doing the same thing. certainly when i was on the 9/11 commission, what we found before the terrorist attacks was a failure to understand that the world had moved on in ways that was becoming greater sophistication and the terrorist threat was evolving but we didn't understand that the terrorist threat was involving. so certainly in our oversight we have to make sure that we understand the agencies need to keep pace with these kinds of rapid developments. >> we have about ten more minutes. any more questions from the audience? yes, sir. >> i've heard a couple times during the discussion on the non-tradition non-traditional -- sorry. i was just wondering, there seems to be -- how do we measure -- how do you see as measuring results of these new

reporting mechanisms, that's not always dollars or how do we prove what we say for proactive instead of reactive. >> right. so the question was for the first part of that question, on these non-traditional reporting kinds of things, how do we measure effectiveness, how do we sort of measure what our results are. think that's a fundamental issue, whether it is the non-traditional reporting or the traditional audits. certainly we are statutorily obligated to talk about the kind of money we save, question costs, funds put to better use, those kinds of things, which are in the ig act and we are obligated to report every six months. but how do you measure effectiveness in the government as a whole is a very, very difficult thing. we have certain measures of effectiveness that we put out, we publish, as to what it is that we're doing. i think there needs to be work done on those because a lot of it is quantitative and i understand the need to have some sort of measurement of what it is that you do.

but in some ways it fails to look at the qualitative measures because certain suggestions or recommendations that we could have could have immeasurable impact or efficiency on the safety of the american people. how is it that you measure that? that's a very tough nut to crack. that's one of the questions that we have internally that we are trying to solve as we go forward. >> that's a good question. i think the -- during the course of the two wars, began a process, letters of concern when we were in the field to commanders. and that was really an abbreviated inspection or audit or evaluation. it's when you're in the field and when folks are at risk, either because of processes or equipment that doesn't work or equipment that's not reaching the area in time, it is just an

immediate concern. to me sort of the effectiveness of that process was how often and how quickly were those letters of concern acted upon by commanders in the field. that's the measure. i can't put a dollar amount to that, but if we were in a situation where we were able to point out a deficiency in supply or training or manning and a commander immediately said, you know, you got that, i didn't see it, i'm going to fix it today, then that was a win. so that's how i would measure it. >> next question. yes, ma'am. >> so many federal igs have overlapping jurisdiction with state and local external auditors. what efforts are you making to

coordinate work with those entities? >> let me speak to that first. i think there are several things. i think john and i are both actively engaged at sigy for one thing. sigy has a role to some degree in sharing information, what we're working on and working on joint projects. but neath that specific to dod and perhaps our efforts in southwest asia, we have a very well organized and i think well functioning southwest asia coordination group where we bring all of the folks that are in the business of oversight in afghanistan together quarterly. we'll actually have a meeting next week -- week after next, a quarterly meeting. we are deacon flikti deconflict. in the southwest asia

coordination activity, we have special inspector general for afghan reconstruction. we have dod, department of state, usaid, gao and i apologize if i missed one or two. but you understand, those folks audit representatives and other folks from those organizations come together and we talk about a comprehensive oversight plan to try to deconflict that. >> particularly in the federal community, one of the things i was encouraged with are these joint audits or joint inspections that we have done. my first week on the job we rolled out -- or were in the process of rolling out a joint report on the boston marathon bombing and the intelligence community's actions with regard to that. that was the intelligence community igs cia ig, dhs ig,

doj ig, all of whom had a piece to this, all of whom could have told separate reports that wouldn't have been told in a cohesive way. inspector general got everyone together pursuant to some direction from the white house to see if we could put a joint report together and i think that process worked terrifically and there are a number of other circumstances in which we'll work a case or an inspection or audit jointly. >> again, those are two examples. there are mentioned the big organization. there are organizations within sigy, too. i was a part of at fdic the council for inspectors general for financial oversight. that's a part of dodd frank, but in the law that requires the agencies that are in the financial oversight business for those igs to come together, talk

about reports and do some joint work. so i think there is a growing understanding. we start to see some of it in legislation that there's need for coordination between igs. my experience is, when we get in the same room, we all have more oversight to do than we have resources to accomplish it. so it's not very often that there are really jurisdictional squabbles. the jurisdiction is broad enough in a whole for all of us. it's just like we need to sit down and say i've got this lane, you've got that lane and let's move out. that's i think we do a pretty good job of that. it can always be better but i think it is pretty effective now. >> got time for one or two more questions. last chance? all right. please give our panel an

applause. >> i want to thank our online virtual listen ers and thank everybody for attending today's session. thank you, gentlemen. great job. this morning, nato supreme allied commander europe general phillip reedlove will discuss current operations involving ukraine. general breedlove is the head of the u.s. european command. the atlantic council center for international security hosts the event in live coverage begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

now a look at the relationship between south korea and japan and the role the u.s. should play in facilitating productive dialogue between the two nations. this speech by a former member of the south korea national assembly was hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. it's about an 1:25 minutes. good afternoon. i'm very honored to be invited to the csis, the center of the american foreign policy and security analysis and one of the leading intellectual center for the global affairs. i'm very grateful to john

handily, my good friend and the leading thinker, philosopher, strategist and good citizen of the united states, good friend of korea, to organize this wonderful event. i see many dignitaries and distinguished guests from u.s. and korea, former chairman of the joint chief of staff, general jong sin jo. many other guests. i'm not trying to take too much of your time.other guests. i'm not trying to take too much of your time. but i'll discuss some issues that i think is very important for us, for u.s., and for japan, in order to promote peace and stability in asia and thereby

contributing to the global peace. the relationship between three countries -- korea, u.s. and japan -- has been characterized by cooperation, and sometimes conflict. in terms of the triangle, it is an economic triangle. korea has fta within the united states, well in place. you would like to implement the fta so that we can have synergy from both sides. japan is now member of the tpp, transpacific partnership, to create a multi-lateral free trade network in the asia pacific area. between korea and japan, we are

major trade partners, but still we have to accomplish bilateral fta, and maybe through the trilateral fta with china -- but in the meantime korea is concentrating on our bilateral fta with china. it is a democratic triangle because we share democracy, freedom and human rights. korea and japan are the leading democracy in asia by any standard. we are full democracy. that was supported by a strong alliance with the united states, korea, united states send its troops to the korean war to defend our freedom and democracy, visa see the communist threat. in the case of japan after post

war, united states again reestablished japan as a new democracy after the war. so we are democratic coalition across the pacific. third, we are security triangle. united states is a common ally of korea and japan. between korea and japan we are not an ally but an indirect alliance through the united states. certainly three countries have been making lot of efforts to deter north korea from its security threats. nuclear test and missile launching, the chemical weapons to weapons of mass destruction, and so on. so there is a strong foundation for the triangular cooperative relationship among three

countries. now i would like to start with a relationship with china. and i think that all three countries -- korea, u.s. and japan, should all deal with china. china made a phenomenal economic growth and its power and influence have been increasing in asia. we'd like to have a very cooperative relationship with china because it is beneficial for us, and maybe for china, too, to have a productive economic partnership. between u.s. and japan, the u.s. -- sorry -- u.s. and china, the relationship is perhaps the most important relationship in our global affairs. we need to exercise our

concerted efforts to make sure that china becomes a constructive partner for peace and stability in asia. at the same time, we want to make sure through ow cur concer efforts that this growing chinese power and influence do not work against the peace and stability of the region as well. if the u.s.-china relationship gets strained, it has a direct impact on northeast asia. our relationship with china, and perhaps our relationship with japan as well. if the u.s.-china partnership gets polarized, if countries like korea and japan certainly feel the pressure, if not a dilemma.countries like

korea and japan certainly feel the pressure, if not a dilemma. and where this relation. is most acutely felt, in the korea peninsula. from a korean viewpoint, cooperative u.s.-china partnership certainly contributes to the peace and prosperity of the korean peninsula, and also for the interkorean relationship, and eventually towards korean unification. there is a very solid, robust u.s.-korea alliance, while at the same time developing a harmonious relationship with china. alliance with the united states and harmonious partnership with china are not two contradictory

things. for korea, most countries to become a cooperative and beneficial partner for korea's economic growth and korea's free trade, and also for the interkorean unification, because that's our national interest, and maybe for the national interest of other countries as well. we recently welcomed president xi jinping to the republic of korea. he visited the country. came to seoul. met with president park and they jointly issued a joint statement that the two countries will expand, develop its strategic partnership, send a firm message to north korea that we oppose the development of nuclear weapons by north korea. they also agreed to finish the korea-china fta, hopefully

before the end of this year. so all this partnership and cooperation are continuing at the moment. but, there's an important caveat to our relationship with china. china has proposed to the united states the new style of great power relationship in the california, sunny lands. i would like to interpret this proposal as something benign, something positive, something constructive, but also at the same time, we have to make sure that this great power relationship, the new style of great power relationship with the united states does not exclude the sovereignty and the interest of the countries in asia, including korea.

united states an china, as we have seen in the strategic and economic dialogue in beijing this year, should continue to closely consult with each other in order to develop its constructive partnership and to avoid any unnecessary conflicts. it is my view that it is not a good idea for the united states to contain china so that china can feel kind of intimidated by the u.s. policy. nor, it is not desirable that china try to exclude united states from asia. the two countries should move towards constructive partnership. next i want to talk about chi , china-japan relationship. this is the most important

regional relationship in asia. we have seen in the past that china and japan were moving in a different direction or collision course. china is a continental power in asia. japan is a maritime power with a strong alliance with the united states across the pacific. korea is in between these two powers. we have seen the sign of japanese war erupting 120 years ago, and korea was kind of devastated between the two powers colliding against each other. we have experienced a korean war. it was started by north korea but china sent its forces. they made a military intervention during the korean war. japan was not directly involved in the korean war, but japan provided a rear area of support to the united states so that they can exercise military

operation in south korea against north korea and china. so again, in the korean war, china and japan were standing on the other side. in the post cold war era, china has risen, japan is now trying to resurge as national prestige and power. so, in the 21st century, we are witnessing another trend, a sign of japanese rivalry in the region. in politics, as i have experienced, rivalry is not always a bad thing. the two rivals could end up being the president, in the case of korea. the famous two kims episode. so rivals actually contribute to the development of the other side if this is a benign rivalry. but if it becomes a maligned

rivalry, then i think it will create big problem, not just for these two countries but for other countries like korea which is right in the middle of these two powers. we know that between china and japan they have historical issue. how to interpret the past history. they have a territorial dispute, and this is the most important source of regional frictions and conflict in northeast asia. we have seen the chinese declaration of the air defense identification zone in northeast asia. japan declared its own, and this region was overlapping between china and japan. actually, overlapped with the korean maritime area as well.

so we proclaimed our own korean air defense identification zone. and this is a very graphic evidence that we are living too closely to each other. there is a kind of geographical proximity, while it encourages rich cultural and economic partnership in a military insecurity area, we are living dangerously. we should make every efforts to prevent any incidental or accidental clash of competing jurisdictions in this area. and i talk with my friends from asean countries. it is a group of ten countries in southeast asia. they have another problem of their own, which is south china sea issue. they try to create -- they try to explore some sort of a code

of conduct in this area to prevent any unnecessary conflicts or direct clash with china which claims its maritime territorial rights in this region. so in northeast asia, too, i think we should make efforts to find some sort of modest operandi or code of conduct that's acceptable to paul participants concerned. compared to europe, we still do not have multi-lateral security framework. we don't have nato. we don't have eu. but i think that crisis creates opportunity, and this maritime territorial issue could be a good forum where we can start to think about a multi-lateral situated framework to make sure that this peace and stability

can be maintained. we have senkaku islands dispute. we have had a very dangerous contacts between the two airplanes, china, japan, and also the united states airplane coming in to area. it is a kind of time bomb in northeast asia. we shouldn't wait for this time bomb to explode. we should actual ly defuse this time bomb so that we can live peacefully. in that sense, i think it was very fortunate that china and japan began to talk to each other through high-level meeting in myanmar on the occasion of the asean regional forum, chinese foreign minister and japanese foreign policy got together, sit down and talk about the common issues. it was a first foreign

ministerial meeting after almost two years, and this is the first such meeting after the inauguration of prime minister abe in his second cabinet. i understand that there was some sort of a preliminary diplomatic activity going on between the two sides, where the former prime minister is known to have visited china to propose a high-level meeting and see if china can come to the table and talk about the common issue. i think that this common occasion between two rival countries certainly contributes to the peace and stability in the region. from korean viewpoint as well, the harmonious china-japan relationship is certainly in our

interest. we do not want china and japan run towards a colliding course. and also, it expands our room for maneuver between china and japan, because you have to deal with the two countries together. and finally, this china-japan communication and dialogue will contribute to the regional cooperation among three countries -- korea, china, japan. another triangle in northeast asia. so i think that president obama, the u.s. government should continue to develop a strategic dialogue with china on the one hand, and manage alliance with japan on the other, and therefore exercise and play its role as a strategic balancer between china and japan. no other country can do it better than the united states.

the reason is that we do not want either china or japan to become an expansionist and dominant power in the region. that is exactly korea's interest. and that is exactly, i think, american interest. next korea-japan relationship. our relationship is supposed to be very close. we always say japan is the closest neighbor. but right now the relationship is very much strained. so geographically we are close neighbors, but politically we live far apart. during the last 1 1/2 years, we haven't seen a summit meeting, top-level presidential meeting, between president park and prime

minister abe. i'm concerned that this stalemate and non-dialogue are actually making -- are beginning to make negative impact on the public opinions of both sides. that's what worries me. if the deadlock becomes too prolonged, then we may pass the point of no return and it will be difficult to recover our sense of friendship and trust between the two countries. we have the recent opinion poll in korea which shows that korean perception of japan is getting worse. at the same time, japanese perception of korea is also moving in the wrong direction. and it includes those japanese, those japanese with a moderate view. those japanese who are interested in korea-japan

partnership will also get affected. that's not good news between the two sides. and, if this stalemate continues, then china is certainly in a position to seek an opportunity to exercise its leverage to divide japan and korea. an example is president xi jinping's speech at the seoul national university. he mentioned about the history, he mentioned about japanese barbaric invasion and acquisition of the territory which made korea and china suffer together. he mentioned that because of our cooperation we could overcome this japanese aggressive

behavior. and so it seems to me that this indicates the chinese idea of putting japan on the other side by trying to create some sort of a kind of united front on history issue, vis-a-vis japan. now, what can united states do to improve the situation. united states is an important partner and common ally of korea and japan. so, u.s. certainly has to be cautious and aware of the reactions from both friends, korean reaction and the japanese reaction. i have been in politics for ten years and i've been leading the delegation from korea to participate in a trilateral parliamentary legislative exchange in u.s., in korea, and in japan.

and i found that when we talk about sensitive issues between korea and japan, such as takto issue, which is our territory. sex slave issue is very emotional. our japanese counterparts from tokyo tended to behave very rationally with our american friends. and maybe our japanese counterparts thinks that koreans behave well with our american friends as well. so i see there is some kind of a spirit of dialogue and partnership, even when we talk about sensitive issues between the two sides. and, mind you, united states cannot disregard the issues -- the thorny issues between korea and japan.

u.s. was the leading international leader after the war to make an arrangement for japan and for korea, including the taktu issue, including support for the korea-japan normalization, including our trilateral security framework to deter north korean threat. so this is a matter for the united states as well. and in retrospect, the united states has played, whether it wanted or not, directly or indirectly, to close the gap, bridge the relationship between korea and japan. as i mentioned, when the normalization of diplomatic relations between korea and japan, there were quite

controversial response from domestic population. there was an abduction in tokyo by the korean intelligence agency. bilateral relationship got to the bottom. united states was there to help improve the situation. there was so-called incident with our first lady was gunshot by a korean japanese who grew up in japan and who came to korea and assassinated the first lady. there was another disaster in the relationship between korea and japan. korea thought japan was responsible. japan said we are not responsible. so, united states acted as a bona fide mediator. so, this is not something new.

and then i think this is, in my view, inescapable destiny of the united states. to as a facilitator or mediator of the two sides, as long as the united states maintains alliance with japan and korea at the same time. the friction between korea and japan seriously weakens the synergy among triangle -- tree ya, u.s. and japan. and also it undermines peace and stability in asia, and it is against interest of the united states. so i think president obama and obama administration should not leave this prolonged stalemate between korea and japan. in that sense, the three-way

conference among president obama, president park and prime minister abe in the netherlands to talk about common issues, issues of security, north korean nuclear issue and how to promote the nuclear security in a dangerous world. it was well done. and i say that the u.s. government did a right thing at the right time. in my view, it should have occurred last year on the occasion of the aipac in bali, indonesia, where three leaders could get together. but at that time, unfortunately, president obama couldn't participate in the aipac meeting because of the pressing domestic issue in washington. but i think that this was well

done. i propose that weebd hawe shoul have a summit meeting between president park and prime minister abe in the near future. the two countries should make serious efforts to make it happen. we have not been talking to each other for too long. even in a family between husband and wife, if they don't talk to each other for 1 1/2 year, this is a serious family issue. at the same time, the united states should make its own efforts to facilitate this encounter, friendly encounter between the two sides. i assume that a serious dialogue

is going on between china and japan. as i mentioned, we have seen the foreign ministerial meeting between two countries, china and japan, in myanmar. and who knows? there could be china-japan summit meeting. i think we cannot exclude that possibility between china and japan. and if china and japan can get somehow agree to holding summit meeting between the two rivals, why can't we have a summit meeting between korea and japan? i think it doesn't make sense. the relationship between korea and japan should not be a zero sum game. if you played zero sum game, it will be a positive sum game for someone else. and this is very fatal to the

national interests of both sides. korea and japan are not enemies. we have had wars before. korea went through colonialism. certainly there is a potential anti-japanese sentiment in korea. but, we are not enemies. i recollect the history of the middle east. egypt and israel reluctantly got to agree to meet at camp david by the diplomatic efforts of president jimmy carter in 1978 and signed the document that israel considered sinai peninsula and gaza strip. so did palestine considered them. of course, we have another crisis going on in the middle east, but if israel and egypt could get together and sign this camp david agreement, why can't

korea and japan do it? also we have seen in europe a historic reconciliation between britain and ireland. which has been there for long time, the frictions and resentment and the conflicts could be overcome. and this is the art of politics and diplomacy that we can create a new history. and, personally, i think that if we, korea and japan, can agree to hold the summit meeting before chinese and the japanese leaders can do it, it's much better, in my view, because by doing so, korea and japan can be in a much more comfortable position to talk with china. the two countries, korea and japan, share democracy, market

economy and respect for human rights. we have opportunities. next month in new york at the united nations summit meeting, all of the leaders will get together. the leaders from korea, president park from japan, prime minister abe and china. that's a good opportunity, in my view, for a meeting like that. i know it is a very short time left. and also, we have g-20 meeting in brisbane, australia in november. that's another opportunity for korea-japan dialogue. we also have aipac summit meeting which is hosted by china. and i think there is a possibility that perhaps in beijing, china and japan can agree to meet, because china is

a host. japan is a guest. so host should treat guest very well spop w well. so why not korea-japan dialogue. and if japan could send the former prime minister to beijing to arrange this foreign ministerial meeting and perhaps the summit meeting, i think japan can also send special envoy to korea so that we can begin our dialogue. now i would like to take this opportunity to state my views to prime minister abe and the abe government in japan. japan is now trying to become a normal state, which means that from the perspective of the japanese leaders, japan is not a full state. something has to be changed in order for japan to become a

normal state. and in my view, for japan to become a normal state, the first thing that it has to do is to come to terms with its own history, squarely face the past history. if it is a wrong history, you should learn lessons from it. if it is a wrong history, you should regret and apologize. if it is a wrong history, you should make sure that the same mistakes will not be repeated. that's the message that neighboring countries in asia wants to hear. that's the message that korea wants to hear from japan. of course, japanese government says, oh, we have made many apologies. which were acceptable to korea. but still, from the korean viewpoint, we are not quite sure

that whether japan has made a sincere, a genuine regret and apology to korea. the number doesn't matter. this is not a political or legal issue. this is something on a different dimension. last year, the day after christmas, prime minister abe made a surprising visit to yasakuni. to many koreans, it was like a kamikaze visit by the prime minister which gave a normal shock to many countries. i think it was an unpleasant surprise to the united states as well. and that has made a very fatal blow to the perception of sincerity by the koreans.

again, recently japanese government came out with an idea that we should review the corner statement which was an official japanese admission of the mistakes and made apology. mr. kono, who announced this statement, was a cabinet, chief cabinet secretary. he was a deputy prime minister and the leader of the democratic party. so he was a government top spokesman. but we wonder why japan at this time has to review thegs kono statement. i think that they shouldn't have started in the first place. because it gave the impression that japan was trying to see if the legitimacy and the factualty of this kono statement was wrong. but the most important thing is that through the review itself

japanese government, abe government, has voluntarily reconfirm reconfirmed the contents of the kono statement. i think that's an important aspect of this drama. i want to tell my japanese friends, and japanese government, is that comfort women issue, the sex slave issue, wartime sex slavery issue, is not a political issue. is not a legal issue. it's a moral issue. it's a universal human rights issue. if japan, as the global economic power, wants to move towards normal state, then this issue has to be resolved by japan itself voluntarily. i regard the abenomics by prime minister of japan very highly.

japan had gone through a more than 20 years of recession, and now the abenomics is kind of pouring in a vitality in to japanese economy. and good japanese economy is in our interest, in korea's interest. and i also appreciate that japan is offering the military base in the country. so that the u.s. could operate on the korean peninsula, peacetime and wartime. so japan is playing this indirect security role in korea u.s. relationship. we both share our traditional tradition, cultural tradition. we share democracy and free markets and we have achieved a remarkable economic development. in that process korea learned lessons from japan. and we got economic assistance from japan.

many countries in the world are envious of the miraculous success of japan and korea and they want to study research on how this is possible. next year, is the 50th anniversary of the diplomatic relationship between korea and japan. this is a historic year. we've been engaged officially for half a century. but unfortunately, the current relationship is going in the wrong direction. i think we should change this problem. look at europe, france and germany could achieve a historic reconciliation because germany came out with an honest apology and genuine repentance about its own wrong past. i think germany certainly

learned from the painful history and they made an apology, and also promised the same mistake will not be repeated again. germany didn't try to conceal the history. they made the concentration camp, the nazi concentration camp into a holocaust museum. i think this is the real lesson that we should learn from history. i would like to remind prime minister abe and the japanese government of the importance of learning lessons from the past history, and this is the legitimate way for japan to become a normal state. i think the u.s. government has actually made its position clear on this issue. president obama, when he visited korea in april, mentioned that

comfort women, sex slavery, is terrible, and egregious. which all koreans agree. u.s. congress has passed the resolution unanimously around 435 members on the comfort women issue. state department in washington has also announced its position, clear position on the comfort women issue. i think that the u.s. government should continue to send its clear message to japan that any careless remarks, which remind people of the military's past of japan, should not be repeated. and that is in the interest of everyone. let me say briefly about this collective self-defense.

abe government in japan is now pursuing the idea of collective self-defense. the cabinet has introduced this concept, first applied through a cabinet decision. i think that this collective self-defense should not in any way impair the peace and security in the region. for the u.s. government, for the obama administration, which is now pursuing rebalance to asia, japan's security role is something that could be acceptable or maybe something that could be welcomed. but the sensitive issue can occur between japan and the neighboring countries. we have seen the post-war japan basically complying to the principle of self-defense in a

very restricted way. the cabinet has made consistent interpretation of the peace constitution in the following way. that is if japan wants to exercise self-defense, it has to satisfy three conditions. one, there should be imminent and illegitimate act of aggression against japan. two, the right of self-defense should be exercised when no other means are available. three, this right of self-defense should be exercised in a minimum necessary level. i think these are very painstaking principles that japan has established during the last 70 years. in order to keep in line with the spirit of the peace constitution and prime minister abe is now changing it.

not by the parliamentary decision, not by the public referendum, but by the decision of the japanese cabinet. so, that creates concern on the part of korea. when many koreans still remember the japan's past historied atrocities and wrongdoings, this can create security and political problems, as well as diplomatic problems. it is true that the united states needs u.s. bases in japan. and japan's support is necessary. but, this should be exercised within the framework, within the parameters, of u.s./japan alliance. this is a different matter from japan's unilateral decision to break out of its 70-year-old

pacifist principles, and to expand this military operation outside japan by participating in an armed clash. i look at the japanese public opinion polls and i see that more than majority of japanese are concerned about this collective self-defense and their concern is that japan could be entangled in an armed conflict against the will of the people. because that's the principle of the japanese peace constitution. and also i can see the japanese political parties like komito, which was cite critical of the collective self-defense ideal, as well. so there is domestic constraint on prime minister abe's pursuit, this collective self-defense. abe governments would say no,

this is a contribution to peace. well in my view it's a problematic contribution to peace. if japan pushes this idea without prior consultations, with other asian countries, including korea, obviously people in korea suspect that this is a new attempt for japan to militarize itself. the united states, therefore, as an ally, with japan, should make sure that this japan's pursuit of collective self-defense should be a limited concept which operates within the parameters of the u.s./japan alliance, and it should not impair peace and stability in northeast asia, nor it should be infringe upon the national

interests and security of the korean peninsula. therefore, the u.s. role is to resolve conflict between the two sides. and if this suspicions, and distrust of the japanese position on collective self-despence resolved, then i think we can talk about the general security information agreement between the two sides. which was derailed recently between the two countries. finally let me talk about north korea. three countries, korea, u.s. and japan should strengthen its cooperation to deal with north korean nuclear threat. i think that the situation has got worse and worse and worse. i know the rationale of the strategic patience of the united states, the obama government in dealing with north korea.

we have tried carrots. we have tried sticks. we have tried sanctions. and we have tried persuasion. we have tried diplomacy. we have tried pressure. we have tried deterrence. neither of them work. so i know there is a north korea fatigue in town. but more important thing is that if we leave this issue as if north korea is there, but somehow this nuclear issue can be resolved, i think it's a terrible mistake. we are faced with more and more dangerous situation from north korea. the situation in the middle is the u.s. air strikes in iraq, the radical armed militants in the country and so on, it's very important top security agenda from the global foreign policy from white house. but i think that if you allow

north korea to develop further of their plutonium extraction and uranium enrichment, then i think that we will have to pay even greater price in the future. north korea, i think, is now concentrating on nuclear warheads and development of themyle and long-term missiles. if the two get combined, then it can reach not only u.s. military bases in korea, japan, guam and hawaii but also alaska and california. at the same time, there's evidence that north korea has been working closely with the countries in the middle east, like syria or iran. and in this connection, which i think is a dangerous liaison between north korea and the middle eastern countries get developed, then the crisis could become beyond control. could escalate beyond control. so, we have to make some genuine

active efforts now amongst three countries, korea, u.s. and japan, to give choice to north korea, whether they would want to pursue this course of danger, or make different choice. we should maintain sanctions, solid sanctions, on north korea as a means of pressure. but at the same time, we shouldn't recoil from the idea of talks with the north. because we want to find out exactly what they think about the current situation and what can be done. i always think that dialogue is better than confrontation and we have to induce this progress, meaningful progress in north korean, we have to make a breakthrough otherwise things will become more dangerous.

finally, on antipathy. i mention at the beginning that the three countries should try to expand the free trade regime in asia pacific region, fda is in place and we are negotiating with china. japan is a member of the tpp and korea also expressed its willingness to join the tpp. compared to this fta, triangular fta between korea, japan, china is in a deadlock. and that's partly because of our problem, political diplomatic conflicts with japan. and also between japan and china. now, there are two emerging multilateral free trade blocks in asia pacific. one is the regional comprehensive partnership with 16 countries including korea, japan, china, india, australia, new zealand and ten asean countries. on the asia pacific side we have the emerging tpp which is in negotiation.

now, if they can counterbalancing trade blocs, maybe, but i think it should somehow accommodate each other eventually to create a macro framework of extended asia pacific free trade network. i don't know, you may have a different idea, but can you think about asia pacific free trade without china? and can you think about east asian free trade without united states? i don't think it makes sense. so, that's where korea can play its role. we are the strong ally of the united states, we have fta with the u.s. which is a benchmark fta. now, in the tpp negotiations, all the countries are looking at the fta to see if we can introduce some trills and the

regimes from the fta. so in a way chorus fta is playing a role of the tugboat, you know the boat carrying the big ship. i'm a former navy officer, so i know how important is tugboat. and also, through our bilateral negotiation with china, we are doing our role, important role, of liberalizing the china market. so that they can accept the global standard, including products, production, the service, intellectual property, and so on. so eventually korea's negotiation of fta with china, and the signing of it, could be a good entrance for china to be invited to the tpp if they want. and if china doesn't want, then there's no entry. but if china wants, then we want to have china, which is more open than now so that we can create a greater asia pacific

free trade network. i think i've spent my time enough so i'll stop here and thank you for your patience. i would invite your questions. thank you very much. >> thank you, dr. park for your very insightful remarks. you touched upon very many important points about the u.s. and japan china relationship and i think that our audience mass many take aways from today's event so i thank you very much. since we are behind of schedule i would like to go straight into the q&a session, so if you have any questions, please raise your hand. microphone is going around the room. so, so please identify yourself, if you have question, before you

say your question. yes. right here. it's on its way. please identify yourself. >> yoshi kimori, thank you very much for your speech. i have agreed with you wholeheartedly when you said that japan and south korea should have a summit meeting. sooner the better. but the fact that it has not happened is by the japanese political leadership. and in fact prime minister abe himself to the south korean's precondition of demand for precondition that the japan should meet, and that would encompass the way the japanese put the leadership to how they choose to pay tribute to the war dead, and maybe long-standing position of the takeshima

island. make you can react too that precondition? and secondly, do you spent enormous time a lot of time just publicly scolding japan the way we have again chosen how to pay tribute to the war dead, and how to interpret history and all that. but such sweeping statements such as japan has not come to terms with its own history, and that japan has not learned lesson from its own history, it's, it's really, especially when they are presented to the third party holding forum such as this one is uncalled for and i can counter to every single accusation that you made based on fact. that this is not the proper forum. so, your precondition that japan has to come to terms with its own history before we have a summit meeting, what's the

connection between your accusation of the current present to japan that includes the reservations about the way we plan to readjust our national security policy to the new reality. and you come in, and you may do this and that and that, you know. have we ever done that to your country? that's really uncalled for. so, your precondition for the summit meeting, what you accuse us of. thank you. that's my question. >> i can take several more questions. >> yes, is there any other questions? >> that's scott thompson with samsung. i'm just curious about the potential connection between trade and geopolitics here in the sense of tpp in particular. assuming the agreement comes to successfully negotiated conclusion, and assuming korea

joins after that point, could improved market access between korea and japan and lower consumer prices for japanese and consumers in each other's markets be a way to lessen tensions on the bilateral security front at all? is there no connection between the two? or, could contentious negotiations in that multilateral format even, in fact, heighten tensions between korea and japan along the way on geopolitical front? >> gentleman over there? >> thank you. elliot waldman with tokyo broadcasting system. i wanted to ask if you could share your thoughts on japan's negotiations with north korea to resolve the abductee issue. and how you see this impacting trilateral cooperation. >> okay, one more question. gentleman over there. >> georgetown university, thank

you very much for your very interesting remarks, and i actually have two questions. the first one is this, and you've talked a lot about history today, and it seems that the biggest obstacle on the way to a japan rok summit is the problem of history. and what do you think are the concrete steps the united states can take in order to exercise its leverage on japan? my second question concerns the recent decision by park geun-hye to appoint a new ambassador to japan. he's known to be a very good friend of japan so what's your take on that? thank you so much. >> well, i have enough questions on my plate. so i will answer the questions. mr. mori thank you for your question. i'm not surprised that your response to my speech. the fact that we have this

difficult problem between japan and korea is in a way inevitable because our post-war arrangement for korea and japan still remains unsolved in my view. where politically, we have had a normalization of relations in 1965, and our next year we are commemorating the half a century of our relationship. but i think that we have to go beyond our current mistrust rand resentment against each other to make efforts to create a new history and that's the duty of the political leaders of both countries. you mention precondition. but i think that we can meet as

long as prime minister abe clearly endorses the kono statement which was reviewed and japanese government itself came to a conclusion that this is, in fact, the case. so i think that this creates a room for korea, japan, talk. and by doing so we can create a better environment for peace and stability in asia. if japan and korea cannot come to terms with each other what can be done? just to build a barrier between the two sides, and japan goes your way, korea goes our way. this is not helped again. i've tried to suggest that given all this difficulties, and all this misunderstanding, still there is room for korea and

japan to sit down together, and talk about the future together. because we are not enemies. we're friends. i have had a chance to study in japan myself. i studied history and culture. i remember that in the long past in the 17th and 18th century we have had a peaceful relationship between the two sides. without any war. there was when the korean delegation to japan visited the country, and then we had a political dialogue based on communication and trust. why can't we reproduce the state of communication and trust in the 21st century, only if we can learn lessons from the past history, it is always possible for us to create a new relationship. so i appreciate your question. let me agree to disagree with

you. that's the reason why we should meet and talk. [ inaudible ] okay, thank you. about your question mr. scott thompson, the bilateral relationship and multilateral relationship. i think it is in the interest of all the countries in the region to move towards multilateral. relationship. especially in the area of trade, and economic partnership. because we are interdependent with each other, and we are in inseparable. and in fact the data of trade volumes and transactions along the countries in asia, especially korea, japan, china, shows that our intraregional trade is growing much faster than our trade with america, and

europe. so that's the point of the tpp in my view. and that's why korea expressed its intention to join the tpp. while we are negotiating with china. so we can play our role on both sides, as i mentioned we can promote the chinese market opening on the one hand and contribute to tpp on the other. and i think that's the important role that korea can play through the good implementation, which is a model fta, and the benchmark for the multilateral framework. >> and then on balance, the multilateral framework would help to lower korean and japanese bilateral tensions? >> absolutely. because if korea joins the tpp it has the effect of concluding korea's fta with japan. you know, which we don't have

now. so certainly that's the beauty of the multilateral agreement. and that is the way that we should move forward. and mind you, korea is an only country in asia now, which has fta with both europe, and america. a korea successfully finishes its fta with china, for the time being, we'll be the only country in the world that has fta with all three major markets, u.s., china, and europe. and i think that puts korea at the center stage of the diversifying global fta network. third question about japan/north korea negotiation. yes, i'm looking at it with very great interest on the one hand, and some concern on the other. it looks like we are having a very ironic twist in our relationship with china and japan. because traditionally, north

korea was perceived as a close ally of china. and korea, south korea was a major economic partner and close neighbor of japan. and now that new trends are moving in a different direction, we know the tensions between china and north korea to the extent that president xi jinping visited seoul before he visited pyongyang. and now japan is now talking with north korea about returning of the abductees from north korea. but i know conviction that whether north korea can actually deliver what japan wants, in terms of bringing back the abductees, if they're alive, then they should come back. if they passed away, they should have some remains of the abductees. i think there are limits to what

north korea can do and also, as we all know, we are imposing sanctions on north korea, the united states, the united nations, japan also and korea, too. so there's a concern, potential concern that if japan somehow take this opportunity to change its policy towards north korea, and change its sanction regime, then it could work in a different direction with a current multinational, international sanction regime on north korea. but fundamentally, i think that there are limits to what north korea can do. i hope that japan could bring all the abductees back to japan from a humanitarian viewpoint. that's the best scenario. i wish it can happen.

then there might be some room for further progress of bilateral relationship with japan, and north korea. but i just see the limits on that point. finally, japan/korea bilateral sum it, there are obstacles, what can be done? i mentioned to mr. mori that we agree to disagree but that is not a reason for nondialogue. and since japanese government itself has come to the conclusion that kono statement is indelible, it remains valid, that's a good start. and i think prime minister abe should make it very clear as a responsible statesman that if he really wants to improve the situation with south korea, he should take the initiative. i mention that if japan can send its special envoy to china, why not to korea.

and we have to talk. we need to start our serious dialogue between the two sides. and about the new ambassador designate to japan, i was surprised, too, that, i mean he is a very respected, distinguished korean political leader of the country. he was a former chairman of foreign affairs commission in the national assembly, big senior in korean politics. so i was surprise d actually at the first report of this appointment. but i said to myself that there might be reason why the korean government has chosen the senior political leader mr. yu hung suh to japan and i think the possible reason could be to

strengthen political dialogue between the two countries. beyond some kind of a diplomatic negotiations, we need to go to the essence of the problem, the issues between the two sides, and yu hung suh perhaps could be the right person to communicate with the japanese political community. i understand that he he was a friend of the former foreign minister, the father of prime minister abe, mr. abe shinto, he was kind of very friendly to korea japan relationship so perhaps that's the area where the new ambassador designate can contribute to a deeper and a more serious dialogue with japanese political leadership. i haven't seen him yet, so, this

is my tentative assessment. >> would you like to take one more or two more questions? gentleman over there. >> you said that you suggested that united states should play a mediator role. would you please satisfy how can they mediate between korea and japan? because, u.s. refused -- refuses to be a mediator. they don't want to take a risk of mediating between the two allies. but they want to be a facilitator. >> can i take a couple of more questions? >> okay. gentleman over there. >> hello, dr. park.

certainly enjoy your speech very much. my name is zi from georgetown university. my question is that on nongovernmental exchanges between japan and korea, you emphasize in your speech the common confusion tradition between the two countries. and i believe in the past decades there's been many exchanges between intellectuals, scholars and students, who emphasize on this common heritage. so my question is could you splees speak briefly about the cultural and educational exchange initiatives between the two countries, and do you believe this could lead to a foundation for a perennial understanding on concord between japan and korea. >> one more question over there. >> thank you professor park. i am with hong kong phoenix tv. you mention in your concern regarding the relationship, could you elaborate more what

exactly the concerns are? and as we know the u.s. has pushed back to this new proposal, and they are asking for the details. so is it in the south korea interest to see the united states and china confronting difficulties to establish this relationship? thank you. >> let me respond to the three questions. first of all, the immediate role of u.s. between korea and japan. i don't think u.s. is going to kind of politically mediate the relationship between the two countries. it could be counterproductive. but, in retrospect, as i mentioned, if you look back, the history of the three country relationship we know that the united states directly or indirectly tried to facilitate the improvement of relationship

between the two countries. not just for the sake of japan/korea relationship, but for the interest of the u.s. on its own. so this position and the role of the united states, i think, doesn't change. and has not changed. and in fact, the u.s. government is already working in that direction in my view. the convening of the three country leaders is one good example. and as i mentioned in the united states or g twenty or in beijing, we have another trilateral meeting between the three leaders because i think we should talk about something beyond our security issue, or strategic issue.

we can talk about our economic structure in asia, including the financial structure. interestingly the chinese leader, mr. xi jinping made a proposal in seoul about asian infrastructure investment bank. the aiib. i know there's a concern in the united states about the chinese proposal, because u.s. is trying to work also together with japan the a.d.d., asian development bank in manila is in operation. the korean president park geun-hye did not make any commitment. she said let me think about. i think we can talk about this position of proposal by china about setting up aiib in a trilateral meeting among korea, u.s. and japan about whether this is meaningful proposal, or whether it could help the asian financial situation and the asian development.

or it works in discord with existing financial system in asia, or in the world. i think this is a relevant topic for three countries to discuss. because i think that before we make our decision we need to make sure that the chinese proposal is in line with the global governance, the global standard of governance in terms of the ownership of the bank, in terms of the propulsion of the fund that korea can contribute and also the korean's responsibility, and the rights in running this bank. which is not at all clear. so i think this could be a kind of relevant topic. so my appeal is that this momentum for three-way communication of all the top leaders in korea, u.s. and japan, should continue in some way be 30.

that's the way the united states can play its role. of a facilitator of the trilateral dialogue. i think it's different from overt mediation in my view. past history the united states is making already its position clear about slavery. president obama's statement, state department statement, u.s. congress lugs, all indicating that this is a moral issue, this is universal human right issue, not just history between korea and japan. united states has been maintaining kind of a neutral position between japan and korea but on this issue the u.s. position to me is quite clear. okay the second question, from the gentleman from georgetown

university, i think this is really important. perhaps more important than the political or security issues that we are discussing. because this is for the future generation of leaders between the two sides. the intellectual and scholastic and the cultural exchange should be between japan and korea. i mention the history between the two sides. they have been communicating for more than 230 years between chinese, and beijing restoration. and this is a history that we should look in to much more seriously. how come the two countries, after two bloody wars, could manage to send and receive this large-scale cultural and diplomatic delegation, reaching up to about 500 people for one year, going back and forth.

and talking about the japanese counterparts. from the korean viewpoint, it was necessary perhaps to bring our people back, we call it abductees by japan. 75,000 people. to korea, and at the same time maintain peace between the reege i'ms. from the government's viewpoint it was a good contact with korea chosen at the same time. to establish this domestic political legitimacy, and to stabilize the situation in japan. so korea wanted peace japan wanted stability. so i think there was a common ground upon which this large-scale regular diplomatic and cultural contact could be made. now i would be very delighted to see the reproduction of this

spirit of communication and trust between the two sides. plus we can create the young leaders from college, from civic society, to visit japan. and we can also invite japan, the counterpart on the japanese side to come to korea and to talk. i've seen a report by korean high school student, who spent five days with her counterparts in japan, through korea/japan cultural foundation program. it was very interesting to see that in the memo she said, i decent like japan. i didn't like japan. i don't like japanese people. and i think japanese don't like us, too. so i was reluctant to join this program because my mother wants

me to study more rather than going to japan. stayed for five days with a japanese family. but after five days my thought has changed. japanese are very polite people. they're friendly. they're sympathetic, compassionate. i like them. so maybe in the future, i would like to find a job about some sort of cultural relationship between korea and japan. and she says, my parents are worried because i became too friendly to japan. this is a fantastic memo. fantastic report that i see from a cultural and educational exchange program, and i'd like to let you know, there is a foundation on both sides, korea, japan, cultural exchange foundation, which is doing a fantastic job. of providing gold and rich between the young leaders of the future. finally on the question from hong kong, new style

relationship. this sounds great. this sounds great. this is new, and this is a great relationship. but as i mentioned, this should not be an excuse for any country, the u.s. or china, to push ahead its own agenda, without due respect and regard for the national interests and sovereignty of the countries in asia. whether it's korea, or other countries in the area. you said united states can push that, the idea, maybe there are some reasons. and the reason is, perhaps related to my observation that if china wants to use this concept to push ahead its own agenda to become a kind of

dominant path in asia, the u.s. cannot accept it. but if it is an other concept, then what the u.s. administration is thinking about, perhaps we can develop it into a more constructive concept. and whatever brand you name it, somehow as i mentioned at the beginning of my talk, having a constructive partnership with china, from the u.s. viewpoint, is in the interest of two powers, and also in the interest of all the powers involved. so, korea should, from our view, korea should continue to play, to send a message, to the u.s., and to china. and perhaps to japan. that in order to create a stable, and constructive international relations in asia,

u.s./china relationship, first of all, should be stable, peaceful, and china/japan relationship should be effectively managed and korea should contribute to make it happen. in whatever way possible. and that's in the interests of south korea, and the future of our foreign policy. >> this is a good way to conclude the event. at the beginning of the event, i was a little skeptical about the future direction of the u.s./rok slshz japan trilateral relationship. because as you said next year marks the 50th anniversary of establishing the bilateral ties between japan and korea. next year marks the 70 years of korea's independence from japanese colonial rule. i think the relationship between japan and korea stands at a very important crossroads this year and i think what both governments will do in the remaining year will have a

really have a big impact in their relationship, at least for the remaining for the park and xi and abe governments. i'm much relieved to hear your comments today. >> i'm glad to hear it. >> and really delighted that you could join us today and give all the insightful remarks. thank you. please join me in thanking dr. park jin for his remarks. [ applause ] this morning, leader of allied command europe general breedlove will provide a review of 9 recent nato summit held in wales. he's also discuss current operations involving ukraine. general breedlove is the head of the u.s. european command. the atlantic council center for international security hosts the event in live coverage begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

live on c-span2, filmmaker ken burns discusses his new pbs documentary, "the roosevelts." a seven-part film covers the lives of theodore, franklin and eleanor roosevelt. live at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. the asian-american journalists association held its annual convention recently in washington, d.c. journalists covering stories about the asian-american community discussed the challenges of pitching stories about asian-americans in the newsroom. this is a little over an hour. all right, everybody. shall we get started? thank you all for coming to this

panel. and people get situated and everything. this is a panel of why and how should we cover the asian-american community. those are good questions. the question is not, should we cover the asian-american community. because that answer is yes. so -- but my name is phil yu. i'll be the moderator for this. i'm the founder and editor of asianman.com. thank you. so, let's see here. let me talk about this panel. i was on last year's version of this panel as a panelist last year and when i was asked to be on the panel, i was like, what kind of -- it was something that the title of the panel was something about like covering the asian-american community. and i was like, that seems really broad, and sort of i was like, okay, yeah. yeah. asian-american community, yes. and it occurred -- through the course of the actual panel it occurred to me oh, i understand what this panel is about. because you know,

i do not know if you are familiar with what i do on angry asian man but i cover the community several hours a day, day upon day, that's what i do. i realize a lot of people attending here are coming from newsrooms where you aren't covering the asian community like people here or some of you might find that to be a challenge in your own newsrooms. hopefully this panel -- you will be able to walk away with some insight in ways to tackle that and some tips to better cover the asian-american community. and, yeah, so without further ado, let's introduce our panel. prior to the panel we sort of discussed ways that we could present this material. so we -- everyone has sort of decided upon a story that they've covered in the last year, covering the asian-american. something from that that they can use as sort of a draw from examples from, and use as 10r9 of a concrete example.

okay. why don't we go down and i will let our panelists introduce themselves and talk -- please introduce yourselves and this particular story that you are going to be drawing from this session. hansi. >> thank you, phil. my name is hansi lo wang reporter at npr headquarters in here in washington, d.c. i'm part of a new reporting team called code switch. we are a team of nine people covering race, ethnicity and culture. one of my particular subbeats is asian-american community. i produce regular features that you hear nationally on mrng edition, all things considered, weekend edition and also things for our blog. so my takeaway tip for folks interested in covering the asian-american community and working not on this particular beat is to embrace the stereotype, which is -- maybe that's not the right word.

but holidays coming along and i'm thinking often the lunar new year is a very big holiday in a lot of asian-american communities. and that often is a time when newsrooms want to find a story about lunar new year. or chinese new year it's often referred to. i have been given that assignment two years in a row. partly because i also am interested in -- i see it as a challenge, because i think we pretty much have all seen the chinese new year story with the firecrackers, with, you know, learned this phrase, learned this food, and i see it as an opportunity, a peg, if you will, for us in the newsroom, to explore some more in-depth issues about our community, things that are happening in the community that relate to other communities. i'm going to play for you a story. i don't know if everyone will be able to hear it. i hope so. this is a little clip from my reader's story. it is about a lion dance troop that is all female in boston. and this is jenny guan, one of

the members. >> my students don't know what i do on thursdays. this is kind of a secret life. >> a secret life that she says her father wasn't very supportive of at first. and her mother? >> she told me i'm crazy. i ask her and i say, well, mom, if you had a chance to do it, would you do it? >> hello! >> jenny's mother said if she had the chance to do the lion dance when she was younger, she would have absolutely done it. but back in china, she says, women were seen as less than. now, as women in living in america -- >> we do, she says, whatever we want. >> so this, long story short, this was an opportunity to do a story about lunar new year that wasn't just about lunar new year. it was about exploring a traditional that traditionally is all men performed this lion dance. but there's a group in boston,

all women, and specifically the leaders of this group wanted to break that gender barrier that prevented a lot of women traditionally from entering and doing this type of martial art. and it was really a story about a group of women who came together once a week, and these are teenagers, these are high school students who came together, formed a sisterhood, supported themselves, in their life goals and dreams, and it was really a story about that and it aired on lunar new year. so it's an opportunity to do stories like that. to think more creatively about what else is happening. >> hi. how's it going? i'm shefali cull carney, producer for public radioation international program called "the world." specifically i work on the global nation desk which is our immigration desk for the radio program. so i cover immigration, but i cover various immigrant groups. among them asian-americans, as well. i'm thinking to think of my

advice and my tip, and it's a little bit opposite of what hansi said. i'm sorry. don't hate me. >> that's okay. >> but i remember when i was interviewing for this job one of the things i talked about was you know, we're having conversations in these communities, we're having conversations like among family and friends, among other south asians for my purposes, and asians, whatever, and that's all that we're doing is we're having these conversations. but that's the only place they stay. so my thought process was if we're covering immigration why do we just have to have these conversations among ourselves? why can't we write about this? why can't we have this as a 207ic to talk about? a good example that i think comes to mind is, i always had a lot of issues with the way people pronounce my name. it was always something that came up. and it wasn't just among asian-americans. it was like, you know, ordering coffee. at starbucks. that was always an issue for me. so like i would gave fake names. or i would say my nickname is

chef. you can call me chef. i thought about it. we're all having this conversation. like everyone mispronounces my name. everyone mispronounces my name. so we invited for one story i reached out to a comedian, i'm sure some of you guys have heard of him, and he had posted something that he's like gaved reach at galifianakis status because people stake the time to pronounce my name. we interviewed him about that. that's awesome, man. why did you call it zach galifianakis? he said because everybody makes a point to pronounce his name properly. me they're like harry cone-da -- and they struggle with it. he said now people are making an effort to say my name properly. so we had a conversation about that. and part of my job as digital producer is we're taking this radio program and trying to figure out how do people interact with it on the web like most of our audience is now coming online, so, we did a social chat. we did a chat on twitter. and we asked people like you know, how do you pronounce your

name? we did hash tag that was like actually #mynameis. biggest hash tag in the world. so we had some people submit things like vines and little videos here and there saying, you know, this is how i say my name. this is what this conversation is about. and the funny thing is, we you have those kind of stories that are like oh, everybody knows this and it's like those eye roll moments of like oh, yeah it sucks when i like, have my name mispronounced. or it sucks when i go indian grocery shopping like the food is stale. why is that? we all know it. you go to the store and things are stale. so irritating. but that's the kind of stories i feel like if we bring that to our radio program or if we bring that to you, you know, on online conversation, that to me is like good coverage of immigration communities. because they're conversations that we're all having it's just that we kind of wall ourselves off. i think that's part of the tricky thing about covering immigration is that you have nice like moments where it's like, well i'll only talk about

this with my south asian friends. i'm not going to talk about it with like, white people. >> they look at the photographers. >> is that okay? whatever, they know they're white. okay? whatever. safe space. so it's one of those, it is true. it is interesting like for example with the story with the name pronunciation where we got people from all walks of life where the name is like this from an irish background and nobody pronounces it correctly. suddenly irish folks are like i didn't know asian-american folks dealt with that, too. it is so fascinating. we are bridging gaps and bringing us all closer. that is my two cents on what might help in terms of covering immigrant communities. >> my starbucks name is alexa.

it is true. it is my daughter's name. i was a reporter at fox and i was told we don't celebrate new year. i am a full time professor. i just got tenor. about a year ago the head of vice president of -- excuse me, vice chancellor at the university of new york they run a television station, the executive in charge of television production contacted me about starting a show. they wanted me to be a part of a program that will focus on the fastest growing community in new york and the united states. and we were basically given the opportunity to create a show from scratch. i was able to actually put

together a team. it is new york so we got together this team of veteran broadcasters. the one thing is that we don't -- it is a state run school so we don't have money like most companies in media. so a lot of the folks have to have other jobs if they are going to work for our show. we are able to find part time moms wanting to come back to work and other folks. we created this show with an amazing team of veteran broadcasters from new york. what we do is a monthly magazine show focusing on the asian-american community which is 40 different ethnic communities in the tri-state. 140 different languages. when folks say are you going to do translation we are like how is that possible? every month we focus like segments running from five to eight minutes long.

our september show we went on hiatus over the summer, another cool thing about working for public tv you can go on hiatus is our september show which we are debuting in two weeks we are focusing on a number of segments on education, for instance. so one of our segments that we are working on, really this is a segment that really pertains to the community at large, for us for all new yorkers about diversity in literature, diversity for children. i'm sure for those of you who read books like "the hunger games" are wondering what happened to the asians in the future like they just disappear. right? and so we interviewed a number of young authors coming out with books in september. they started a campaign.

the "new york times" did a story. we focused on the asian part of it. asians make up 13% of the population in new york. the number of asian characters in children's books is less than like 2%. that is a story, an eight-minute piece. in local television eight minutes is a long time to spend on a segment. we like to look at ourselves as a cbs morning show but it is monthly. we are working on something called the bamboo ceiling in colleges. we are talking about president's office. we are talking about what happened to the asians at the administration at that level? we talked to a couple of presidents that were recently appointed. another story that is going to air is tonight is the met life south asian spelling bee. many of the winners of the south

asian met life spelling bee have gone on to win the big one. so we are going to talk about why indian-americans in particular dominate the spelling bee. we do like a wide range of different stories covering really a massive community when you really think about it. what is interesting because we are kind of korean heavy on our show right now. one of our -- we just happen to be. >> you mean like staff wise. >> one of our producers said you know every segment in our june show was about a korean-american. that is something we have to think about. we have to make sure that we actually include other communities, communities that people don't even think about. there are 40 different groups in new york alone. so for us that is our biggest challenge is reaching out to all of these different communities because there is not just one

china town in new york, there are four china towns in new york. we can't leave all of those china towns out. that's it. my name is emile guillermo. this must be the filipino side of the table. i like to call myself american-filipino because i like to turn things upside down. you will have to read my columns to figure out why i say that. i am a reporter, columnist, blogger. my reporting days began a long time ago more than 30 years ago. i guess this is kind of the veteran side of the table. i can relate to everything these guys have said on this side. i have mispronounced my name professionally. i have corrected people professionally. my very last story on npr was

about how to say guillermo. if i say guillermo i am asian. and that's the thing about filipinos because i honor the filipinos and not the colonizers. that is why i say guillermo and that is the way they say it. anyway, this is a special convention for me because 25 years ago i was named the first asian-american host of npr's "all things considered." i just did the math here. i had to do it several times. it is 25 years ago. i left in 1991. since that time there have been zero hosts. now that is because i did a bad

job or there has been bad management but i see here from this convention a number of really good npr voices here on the panel and out there in the audience. and i hope that they sooner than 25 years become a host at npr. and of "all things considered" the flagship show and not one of the side shows like "tell me more." it was odd to go back to npr at the reception. i wasn't expecting a red carpet. i wasn't expecting even a yellow carpet. they didn't give me any carpet. they didn't know who i was. this is the thing about diversity. we still have a fight. we still have a long way to go. when i was first in 1989 i thought this is going to be a break through. we have a lot of breaking

through to do. now, the story i want to relate to, a short one. it's this may, may 3, my cousin stephen guillermo was murdered in san francisco. i didn't cover the initial story. i couldn't cover it. i was too close to it so i gave it to "the san francisco chronicle" and let them cover it. and then i took over. as a person who could do the story they stopped the story after the first day they talked about the law and the legal issues. they couldn't talk about the historical context which is what you can bring as an asian-american. here is my cousin 26 years old, came to america at age 8. my father came to america in the 1920s. here is my cousin who lived in a one-room apartment, five to a room, that is a little better than my father who lived ten to

a room. here is my cousin in 2014 who is murdered in a tent ament in san francisco actually recycling the kind of life that my father had almost 90 years before. this is the kind of context in the community that asian-american reporters can bring to the story if they have the courage to tell that story and if their editors have the courage to let them tell that story. so many times they do not. i have to tell you a very disheartening tale. i wasn't to the investigative reporters conference in june before this and an asian-american reporter came to me. she was an immigrant starter and had a fairly well off upper middle class life and she said i don't know how to be an asian-american reporter. i don't know how to cover this story. she was a