he had run for the senate first in 1941. there is considerable evidence that that election was stolen from him. what happened at that time what happened that time is he was ahead in all the early counts. he was anxious to get the count out. his campaign published the totals as soon as they had them. the opponent held back the counties they controlled, so once all of johnson's votes were in, they could tilt the votes in their counties they controlled. johnson did the exact reverse in 1948. there was one precinct where there was like 1,000 votes when

they finally turned them in cast for johnson, and only 600 registered voters, so it was somewhat suspect. there was little question that there was a lot of hankie panyy from both sides. host: our next caller is from michigan. caller: the lessons of the vietnam war, as it applies to today's wars, seems to me that vietnam was fairly contrived, the gulf of tonkin incident, we entered the war under false pretenses. it seems to me that iraq is the same thing, or similar, has lots of parallels, and even afghanistan, the fact that the government is to corrupt, and

it's supposed to be ourally. it seems to me that our leaders have not learned, really reviewed or learned the lessons of the disaster of vietnam. guest: i agree with you about afghanistan. i'm afraid that as -- one of the points i was trying to make was the arguments for being in vietnam seemed very good at the time, very compelling. well, so did the arguments for being in afghanistan today. what's going to happen to the women of afghanistan if we pull out, and that's a horrible thought. well, you know what happened in vietnam when we pulled out, the antiwar people never want to admit that a million south vietnamese fled in boats because

they didn't want to live under the north communists. there will be a real cost to giving up in afghanistan. i do not see how we can possibly prevail with the government that is as corrupt and inefficient as karzai's just as we could not prevail in vietnam with a government that was corrupt and inefficient. host: president johnson you write had knowledge about things and allowed the american people to essentially be misled. guest: that's true. his first instinct on the gulf of takin was to downplay it. he was talking to the former secretary of treasury under eisenhower, a very influential man, anderson. johnson told him he kind of

provoked, there have been some south vietnamese raised on the north, and the north suspected that our ships might be supporting those rides, and so they had some excuse for attacking our ship. then anderson said just like judge morrison had said way back earlier that year, anderson said, but goldwater will acrossify you if you don't seem to stand up to the north vietnamese. johnson thought that over. later that day, he decided he was going to turn it into a chance for him to stand up and show that he was just as tough as goldwater, and that was of the real reason. it wasn't to manufacture a war, as the previous caller suggested, it was to deal with a political reality of that time,

of that moment, the political reality of the only threat from goldwater, the only way he polled better than johnson was policy being tougher on foreign policy. host: joan joins us from tennessee, an independent caller. caller: i am 65 years old, and i was one of the protestors of the vietnam war, marched, but of course, with age comes wisdom, and at this point, i really appreciate what president johnson was up against. even though i did not vote for him, because i don't vote, that's not cyniyism, i did vote once for the son of nancy pelosi. i think that lyndon johnson is

one of the great presidents because of what he did in passing the civil rights act. he did that, even though you knew that it would cost the democratic party the white south, but he did it based on moral reasons, because he really wanted to perfect the constitution, and that passing the voting rights act, even though it would cost the democratic party the white south, he did it because it was the right thing. guest: that is such an important point, and i really congratulate you, culler, because i think nothing is more important to understand the great side of lyndon johnson than that the courage it took. he knew that it was going to cost him the south. he knew it, and he had the courage. it is so funny, the great irony

of lyndon johnson is that he worried in connection with vietnam so much about demonstrating courage. i think he told doris kearns of the nightmare he had all during the presidency, this was talking to doris after he was out of office. the nightmare was of bobby kennedy leading a mob accusing him of being a traitor, coward, weakling if he left vietnam. of course, bobby had been somewhat hawkish, so johnson had a reason to fear the hawkish side of bobby. johnson didn't trust or understand him. just as that fear of goldwater,

he feared bobby would criticize him if he pulled out of vietnam, just a glorious misunderstanding. he was so worried about showing courage in vietnam, and yet he had displayed immense courage in the civil rights bills, knowing that he was risking losing the south, which he did. host: let's listen to president johnson talking with robert kennedy in 1964 about the civil rights bill. >> mr. president? >> yes. >> we had a meeting all day today with senator dirkson on the civil rights bill and feel that we have an agreement with him, with senator akin. >> congratulations. what does he think? can he get the votes? >> he thinks so.

we'll have a meeting monday morning. >> are you in pretty good shape with the folks someday in the bill? >> we meet with them at 4:30. they're not going to be happy, but nothing makes them happy, and so we just have to accept that. >> i don't know, you did a good job of making everybody happy on the house side. >> in october, they weren't happy when we did it. >> i know, but they saw the wisdom of it after you did it. >> after it was over. senator dirkson was terrific. >> should i call him? >> should i give you the names? senator akin, and phil hart was damn helpful, and senator magnusson, and of course, dirkson. >> thank you, bobby.

host: president johnson talking with attorney general robert kennedy on reaching an agreement in the senate. guest: that was glorious. host: i heard you laughing. guest: what wonderful moment, the conversation. sometimes, bobby was a little idolized about his liberalism. you notice the remark talking about the senate liberal, and he said at one point, nothing would satisfactory those guys. and i worked with bobby, and i knew that other side of robert kennedy, so that made me laugh. that was a great example of kennedy and johnson actually working together to get that civil rights bill of 1964 through. host: let's go to timmy,

democrats line in nashville, tennessee. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i spent a year working with president ford publishing his final book that was on the j.f.k. assassination. my question is about a couple of things that even president ford would not talk with me about, and that related to l.b.j., and that is it true that he was being investigated by the senate for bribery and corruption, and that was at least part of the reason that he was not going to be on the ticket with president kennedy in 1964? guest: he was going to be on the ticket, i think, kennedy had already made the decision that johnson would be on the ticket,

and johnson, he had asked johnson to go with him to texas and help arrange the trip to texas. there's no question johnson, there was a people in the kennedy camp, and i think maybe that included robert kennedy, robert kennedy, and lyndon johnson disliked each other intensely from the very beginning, when they met in the 1950's. i think bobby had opposed johnson being given the vice-presidency in the beginning. there was two sandals, one billy sol estes and one bobby baker. one thing moving about the bobby baker scandal is it threatened

to reveal johnson's girlfriends, and jack's girlfriends. i think jack saw considerable common ground. there was a conversation, one of those fascinating conversations, bobby could be quite self-righteous, but there was a call from bobby to baker that they've been trying to quiet down the scandal. jack talked to bobby, we've got to do something bit, and bobby said to bobby baker, who was a man of let's say of not the most sterling character, but that, oh, we have great confidence in the president. we have great confidence in you. we know you're going to get through this, and all that was to keep bobby quiet about jack's affairs. host: let's go down to the republican line with don in

st. petersburg. you're on the air. caller: and i have question for mr. peters. i read something the other day that president eisenhower tried to have the civil rights bill passed in the late 1950's, and it was killed in the senate by lyndon johnson, and then in 1963, johnson got it passed in the senate, 1963 or 1964, and then he took credit for it for the rest of his life. is that correct? guest: that's not correct. in 1957, under johnson's leadership and with only tepid support from eisenhower, johnson passed the civil rights bill of 1957, which, to me, remains one of the miracles of american legislation, because to anybody who lived through the 1950's as i did, and was working in a

legislature, as i was, knew the tremendous difficulty of passing any liberal bill in that cautious atmosphere. this was the mccarty era. people were petrified of doing anything that seemed very liberal. johnson got the united states congress on record as saying these civil rights actually existed, people had the right to go into restaurants, all these places, to go vote, to their education, all these rights. the bill was toothless. some of the at this times said it should have been tougher. to me, it was amazing that he got the bill passed.

he got richard russell, his southern friend to persuade his fellow senators, southern senators not to filibuster the bill, which was an amazing accomplishment. johnson, i think on the matter of civil rights, his father had had the courage to fight the ku klux klan in texas when johnson was a small boy. the klan in texas when johnson was a small boy, the klan was very powerful. the unquestioned good side of johnson to me was this side that showed when he was teaching in texas, shows with the civil rights bills, shows with education, with the great society as a whole. this man, really, i was like him, i was a franklin roosevelt

worshiper. i understood the religion. his religion was when he could escape the shackles of the southern senator, and as a president show his real liberal side. that's what he did. host: democratic line from illinois, johnny, hi, there. caller: from hegewisch. i would like to ask mr. peters, i'm a vietnam veteran, and kind of a back room historien about that war. my question is speaking of eisenhower, right after johnson made the announcement that he was afraid to send american boys to fight in a war that oriental boys wouldn't fight, and right after that comment, a short period of time later, johnson called eisenhower, or vice versa, and eisenhower scared johnson into believing the domino theory. right after that conversation

with eisenhower, i understand, is when johnson made the commitment of 150,000 more troops. would you speak to the beginning of that war, mr. peters, and god bless c-span, and bless you all. guest: i think there was no question that eisenhower had influence with johnson, but i don't think it was in any way decisive on this matter. i think what was decisive with johnson in getting into the trouble in vietnam originally were that the gulf of tokin resolution was political, set up to keep him from having an attack from goldwater. johnson also feared that the democratic convention was coming up later that august, that same month, he feared that bobby kennedy would lead a revolt in

the party against him. he was totally neurorottic about bobby. that was political. the decision of the major escalation by the time they made that, that was made out of real -- the other thing of johnson -- of my having shared a part of johnson's life was if you worshiped f.d.r. because of the fight for the depression and for the average man, you always worshiped him for standing up to hitler, churchill. they were two heroes. you weren't going to have anything to do with another munich, or sell out a checkle

czechslovakia. the domino theory, they really believed. the communists had taken over a lot of countries. the fear that they would take over a lot more was not an irrational fear at that time. host: do you think the legacy of president johnson will become more positive. guest: i think it will. i think with afghanistan going through the anguish of figuring out what to do, will understand the tremendous difficulty of whatever we do, it's going to be wrong in some ways. we're going to do some evil, whatever we do, and that's a

terrible thing to face. that was the kind of vision johnson had in vietnam. as people realize that, they'll look back on the great things johnson did. he was so much like andrew jackson. we haven't talked about johnson's crudeness, but that's another fascinating story. host: i wish we had more time. guest: it was wonderful. host: this book is part of the american president series published by times books. he is director of evaluation for

>> tomorrow, a look at the upcoming elections with a reporter from" political -- "politico." pew hispanic director paul taylor on reports that illegal immigration to the u.s. is down. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. sunday on" newsmakers -- sunday on "newsmakers," an interview with the u.s. coastguard, none -- u.s. coast guard commandant. >> is think about ponzi schemes. the biggest is telling someone

who has worked really hard to earn a buck that they are not smart enough to understand how that but is going to be invested. >> in 2007, meredith whitney was the first to project major losses for citigroup. she is our guest sunday night on cue and a -- "q and a." >> the court ruled that the university has the right to withdraw certain groups that do not have certain policies, aimed at preventing discrimination. >> let us go ahead and begin. i am mark david hall, a professor of political science and vice-president of christians and political science. we welcome you to our panel for this convention.

we are particularly grateful for c-span for agreeing to cover the proceedings here. they told me that after we do the presentations that will need to move a microphone around the audience to make sure we get audience questions and comments very well. so be patient with that. before we get to the panel, let me invite you to the events planned for this evening. we will meet in this room at 6:15 for an hour and a half or so and have a brief business meeting. we will worship together. will have a guest speaker. for those of us interested in religious liberty, christian legal society verses martinez might be one of the most important german by the supreme

court in recent years. it raises questions about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and equality. we have a great panel. some of these folks were involved in litigating the case. they know a great deal about this area of law. i am sure this will be a fascinating discussion. let me introduce each of our panelists. each panelist will take between 10 and 15 minutes. will have at least a half hour for q&a or comments from the audience. we have greg baylor of the alliance defense fund, holly hollman, richard kaskey, and frank lousa of patrick henry college. i will turn things over to you, grace.

>> into for inviting me to participate in this panel discussion. i also want to think christians in political science for hosting and supporting this event. i want to thank my panelists were coming to talk about this case tonight. and look forward to all of your insights. i am an attorney with the alliance defense fund. we support religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the preservation of the family through strategy, funding, training, and a litigation. some of us were involved in representing the christian legal society in this case. i was part of the legal team that represented the christian legal society. professor hall has asked me to set the stage for our discussion today by describing the fact of the case. i will do so in a essentially

journalistic, hopefully neutral fashion, even though i have strong opinions about the case and the opinions rendered by the justices. let me start by talking first about what happened at hastings. hastings is a public institution, hastings college of the law in san francisco, a public law school. it does what a lot of colleges and universities do. it encourages the formation and activities of student organizations. it does this by offering them various benefits. it recognizes these organizations and give them benefits such as access to meeting space on campus, access to various means of communicating with the campus community, with the student body, and eligibility for funding. this is a very common practice on college campuses across the country, both public and private.

at the time, the controversy that ended up in this case in the supreme court in 2010, back in 2004 hastings had recognized approximately 60 organizations. they ran the gamut. you have groups that were focused on legal issues -- the environmental law society. you had the federal society, the american constitution society. you had groups focused on public policy like abortion. then you had leiter topics. there was a lie and appreciation group. there was an ultimate frisbee group. there were various religious organizations, ethnic ones, and cultural ones as well. casings have recognized all of these organizations. let us turn our attention to christian legal society. it was founded in 1961. it is a nationwide association

of christian lawyers, law students, law professors, and judges. its primary mission is to integrate legal practice with christian faith. the members share a common fate. the organization is dedicated to advancing religious liberties, biblical conflict resolution. it facilitates legal services to the poor. there were some students at hastings in 2004 who formed a chapter of cls. cls has attorney and law student chapters. the students approached the administration and said, "we know you have a recognition system. we know you have addressed the variety of issues. we would like to be the 61st organization." hastings response was you cannot be recognized. why did they say that? let me back up and says something about cls.

it welcomes everyone to participate and attend its meetings and activities. however, like many religious organizations and many christian organizations, it limits its leadership -- it draws its leadership and those who select the leaders from among those who share its christian commitments. in has a five-point statement of faith. it resembles the nicene creed, the apostles' creed, and so on. it recognized an ongoing debate within not just our culture but within christianity itself about the issue of human sexuality is. it therefore issued an understanding of the statement of faith as applied to the issue of human sexuality and restated the historic christian position, which is that god has reserved sexual intimacy for a marriage between one man and one woman.

consistent with his understanding of human sexuality and the christian ethics of human sexuality, cls says that its members and its leaders, those who set the agenda for the organization, ought to strive to embody christian ethical prescriptions, and not just limited to sexuality but including human sexuality. that means that someone in gauging and repented late in extramarital sexual activity, whether heterosexual or homosexual, could lose their eligibility to serve as a voting member of the christian legal society. that is what hastings' focused on when it said to cls they could not be a registered organization. it said that the statement of faith requirement was religious discrimination and that the human sexuality component of the ethics statement was a violation

of its ban on sexual orientation discrimination. recognition.s cls filed a lawsuit in federal district court in san francisco. during the discovery process, something interesting happened. during the discovery process, in the depositions of representatives of hastings, they testified that what hastings had at that time, in 2005, when the depositions were taken, was not a nondiscrimination policy that listed protected character is a list -- protected characteristics, but it had what came to be called an all-comers policy. if a group wanted to be recognized, it not only needed everyone to be able to attend its meetings, but it also was required to allow people who

rejected its views and who rejected its ethical standards, and who behave in a way inconsistent with those ethical standards not only to attend anticipate but to serve as leaders and voting members to select the leaders. one of the pity ways we described it was hastings' essentially said, "you must promise in advance if you want the benefits of recognition that every other student group has -- you must promise that if an atheist who rejects the authority of the bible wants to lead bible study that you will allow him or her to do so." there was a nondiscrimination policy and there was an all comers policy. before the parties asked the district judge to resolve the case, then entered into a stipulation of facts. one of the things the parties jointly stipulated to was that hastings had an all comers policy. interestingly enough, the parties both talked about the constitutionality of the

nondiscrimination policy and the all comers policy in a district court and subsequently in the ninth circuit. what happened next? the district court said hastings wins, seal us loses -- cls loses. cls made constitutional arguments that pressuring it into accepting those who rejected its beliefs as members and leaders of violated its right of expressive association, the right that had been recognized by the supreme court in a series of cases, most recently in a case involving the boy scouts in new jersey who were told they had to accept an openly homosexual man as a scoutmaster under jersey state law. the supreme court that -- said that by forcing the boys just to accept as a leader someone who rejects the message new jersey violated the boy scouts's right

of expressive association. cls also argued that hastings had created a forum for speech, which is a term of free speech jurisprudence. it's set up the system whereby speakers could come in. they could express their views. there are constitutional rules that govern government management of the speech for rooms, what restrictions that can apply, what boundaries the can apply, how consistent the have to be in policing the boundaries. cls said, "you have created a broad forum. you have all kinds of groups. he did not care what they said. but you rejected cls because of how what it was doing was connected with the message of the christian commitment -- the christian commitment ethically and doctrinally."

they are did this was viewpoint discriminatory, which is a big no under the free-speech clause. the argument was that hastings allowed groups to organize around secular ideas but not around religious ideas. this was an attack mostly on the religion nondiscrimination policy. that, cls argued, was discriminatory. the ninth court affirmed that decision. at that point, cls asked the supreme court to review the case. it put hastings into a greater context. the chapter at hastings was not the first and probably will not be the last religious student organization at a public university that experiences difficulty with the administration because of the statement of faith requirement.

this was a widespread problem. there had been many controversies which had resulted in litigation. more specifically, we pointed out to the supreme court that the ninth circuit which will against cls had disagreed with the seventh circuit, which had ruled in favor of cls in an essentially identical case. that is one of the jobs of the supreme court, to make sure we have a level of uniformity with respect to constitutional law across the country. if one circuit says one thing and another circuit says a mother, the supreme court is somewhat more likely to step in and resolve that dispute. the supreme court granted cert. they face some fundamental questions. i want to talk about those and then move on briefly to talk about how the justices dealt with those big questions.

the first question was what are we dealing with here. are we adjudicating the application of a nondiscrimination policy, or are we adjudicating the application of an all comers policy? cls believed it was both, whereas the hastings position became -- and i would argue it was not their position below -- that the only thing in front of the court was the all comers policy. what are we dealing with here? the second question was after we resolve that question what is the right way for the supreme court to approach this case. in other words, what questions do we need to ask or answer in order to decide who wins? more specifically, there was a debate between the ninth circuit in the seventh circuit about this question. cls and the seventh circuit arguta should approach this like it is boy scouts. you should apply the test set forth in the expressive

association cases. in essence, that amounts to strict scrutiny. if there is a burden on the right to express of association, the government has to come forward with a compelling justification to justify it. if the court chooses that test, it is easier for cls to win. the view presented by hastings and the ninth circuit was you do not apply strict scrutiny but instead treat this solely as an access to foreign case -- access to forum case. hastings' position was you do not even ask the expressive association question. i apologize if we are getting into legal doctrine here, but it is inescapable. the questions are essentially was the exclusion reasonable in

and was thee forum, exclusion viewpoint neutral. the remainder questions flow from how the court answers those initial questions. let us move on before we conclude to how the court dealt with as big questions. first of all, i should observe that it was a split decision. it was 5-4, 5 ruling for hastings for who sided with christian legal society. justice ginsburg wrote the majority opinion, which included anthony kennedy, who many thought was the justice most in play before the case was heard. justice stevens wrote a concurring opinion. he joined justice ginsburg's concurring opinion, as did

justice kennedy. just as ugly to was the offer -- was the author of the dissent -- justice alito was the author of the dissent. the cls decision was both policies. the hastings position was only the all comers policy. the supreme court said only the all comers policy. they pointed to that stipulation the dean gave the saying we do not have a nondiscrimination policy, but an all-comers policy. they said the stipulated to the existence of that policy. that is a true statement. cls interpreted that situation to mean that has always been the policy, and that was the policy that was applied to you when you sought recognition in 2004, and that is what hastings does with every other student group, the

last of which was a very debatable proposition. big question one is we are dealing with an all-comers policy. question to is i think the most significant part of the justice ginsburg's opinion. in essence, it dictates the outcome. that big question was what is the legal test. is it reasonableness and two. neutrality? that is is your for his to win. is its strict scrutiny, expressive association, which is easier for cls? justice ginsberg said it is reasonableness and viewpoint neutrality. i personally do not believe it is the most persuasive part of her opinion, but it says it would be anomalous to apply these different tests which might give us different outcomes. i will let you evaluate it for yourself.

she reached that conclusion and went on to the sub-tests underneath that test. she said it was reasonable. hastings had an interest in protecting students from discrimination at the hands of student organizations. they had an interest in facilitating conversation and discussion, which would be undermined if groups were excluding people from leadership and membership positions. she said it was two. neutral because it did not apply just to religious organizations or speakers. everybody was under the yoke of this policy. it was viewpoint neutral. the dissent disagreed on all counts. i will say one thing about justice kennedy's opinion before i leave the rest of my time to my fellow panelists. he essentially justified his vote. in doing so, he said something very revealing about statements

of faith generally, which in my view were very disturbing, as a christian who holds to the statement of faith of the christian legal society and all the rest. he said that the era of loyalty oaths was over. he was invoking mccarthy era loyalty oaths and comparing them to statements of faith. he did not put it quite this way. i am paraphrasing and i apologize. he essentially said it is bad for cls to wall itself off from competing ideas. it is bad for a student to have fixed views on religious ethics. hastings is doing a good thing by forcing you to accept leaders who disagree with your views on the statement of faith. that was disturbing to me. with that, i will turn it over to my colleague, who will say something more evaluative about the supreme court opinion.

thank you very much. >> greg did a great job outlining the case and the court's decision. i am going to talk more about what i think are problematic about the majority opinion in this case. basically, you are taught in law school that when you do not have the facts on your side, argue the law, and when you do not have the law on your side, argue the facts. in this case, we had both the facts and the law on our side and be argued both, yet we came up one vote short of winning. i want to hit four aspects of the majority opinion, but i would really suggest reading the

dissent by justice and leto -- justice alito. in his dissent, he sets out how the facts and the law supported -- compelled a decision in favor of cls. not only is it a great opinion for us, but it is a great example of a good dissenting opinion your students might be interested in. the things i want to touch on in this quick time -- the decision is very narrow. the court limited its decision to the all comers policy and did not decide what would happen if it had looked at the nondiscrimination policy that is typical at most university campuses. it is a narrow decision. all comers policies are a bad idea.

we do not expect to see a rush by college administrators to adopt all comers policies. that is the second substantive issue and want to touch upon. third, this decision, if it is not construed extremely narrow lead, hurts not only religious groups -- and it did tremendous damage to all religious groups -- but it hurt all groups that want to found around, and ideas and beliefs and have their leaders agree with those, and ideas and beliefs. it is an association all right we took for granted. we assumed the supreme court would agree that all groups have that right. i want to note at the end that the court stranded -- squandered an opportunity to decrease the volume in the debate on homosexual conduct. it is an opportunity should have taken advantage of rather than

squandering. very quickly, i want to note that the decision is very narrow. it is not just wishful thinking on my part to say it is a narrow decision. educational experts almost immediately after the decision noted how narrow it is. i have a handout that has some of the articles i will refer to. there is a site on the internet where you can find them. basically, i point you to peter article, in which he talked about a talk to a university counsel a day or two after the decision, in which the risk management experts said this is in our decision. it did not deal with the common policy of nondiscrimination policies, whether those could be applied to religious groups to not allow them to choose their leaders according to their religious beliefs. this litigation is not going away.

the religious groups that have been fighting on this issue for 15 years are still very concerned about this issue and will keep fighting. none has been kind of the message that university counsel are hearing. this is not an open invitation to throw religious groups of of campus. they need to proceed carefully. the reason that we think that most universities might flirt with the idea of adopting an all comers policy like hastings had initially, but backed away once the really examine it -- there are several reasons why it is a bad idea. i will hit on a couple of them. i would like to point out that even the majority says we are not saying that universities are required to adopt a hastings all comers policy. we are just saying it is permissible. we are not even saying it is advisable. one of the interesting things in

the amicus briefs in support of hastings is that most groups that supported hastings uniformly said these all comers policies are very strange and are probably not a great idea for first amendment freedom, but in this case are permissible. the other thing i wanted to point out is there are all comers policies that are not a problem. if the all comers policy simply means that the meetings and events of all student groups should be open for attendance by any student on campus, that is not a problem. cls welcomes all students to come to its meetings and events. we have trouble getting students to come to our meetings and events sometimes. this kind of all comers policy is not a problem. the all comers policy -- the one that hastings had said you not only have to be open to attendance by everyone.

you have to open up your leadership to everyone, including leaders who affirmatively do not agree with your religious beliefs. the first problem was an all comers policy like tastings. it demolishes first amendment rights that all groups enjoy in our country, or at least we thought we enjoyed, which is the right for political, cultural, religious, and social reasons to form around a common belief and a common mission, to engage in a speech to promote the belief in mission. you do that by having leaders to agree with your mission and volumes. it is not a good policy for first amendment rights for any group. it is particularly not a good policy, and actually undermines the intent of non-to commission policies to protect minority groups. that is a very odd aspect about what hastings did.

said this protected its nondiscrimination policy, but it undermines the protection of that policy. there are several ways in which it does that. first, the hastings acting dean at the time of the oral argument, in a pbs interview, said that the policy would require an african american student group to admit white supremacists. in other words, minority groups have to admit extremists who disagree with the group into its membership and its leadership. as justice scalia said in oral argument, that is kind of crazy. the court seemed undeterred by that. the other way in which it hurts minority groups is that hastings itself said that if it deemed

the practices of orthodox jewish groups or muslim groups to be discriminatory -- maybe a group that has women sit on one side of the room and men sit on the other side during worship -- that it could exclude the orthodox jewish group or muslim group from campus. that is very troubling to have one religious group or several smaller religious groups excluded from a public university campus. that is what hastings says its policy allows it to do. something that troubled cls is that there are religious people who engage in hate speech against, for example, homosexual persons or people of other races. cls is adamantly opposed to such hate speech. we do not want anything to do with it. under the hastings policy, if fred phelps showed up and said, "i consider myself a member of

cls and am going to start giving my habeus around campus -- my hate views around campus," we would not be able to do anything about it. that is troubling. finally, it is an administrative nightmare for college officials because it brings them into every decision making policy of every group. it does not just confined it to "are you engaged in religious, racial, or gender discrimination?" every decision is now up to review. justice kennedy was frank that he does not expect college -- he does expect university officials to make sure it is not used to stifle a groups speech. i am not sure her college

officials can do that. i will highlight the speech i see coming from the majority opinion. i will move to these quickly. the majority, in order to rule against cls, had to set aside three longstanding precedents the required universities to recognize student groups even when the university did not like the views of the student group. the court had to push those aside. as the court admits in the first paragraph of the opinion, those cases would have looked like cls would win. we have to push those to one side. the troubling thing there is if the decision is broadly construed it will apply to the rights of all speech on public university campus. one of the places in which -- what the court did is it said we are going to defer to college

administrators' policy judgments and are not going to scrutinize those closely. what does that do to the academic freedom of professors, if the university is going to be able to make whatever decision they want to make and the supreme court is going to defer to those decisions? indeed, one of the troubling things that was highlighted in a post by adam goldstein on the huffington post -- and he is an attorney with the student press law center. he said he does not agree with cls' position, but that this is devastating for free speech. in essence, the court shoved aside the college student free speech cases and apply the standard of deference that apply to cases involving speech of secondary students. now law students are treated as if that are in kindergarten. that is a troubling aspect of

the decision. second, despite what it does to campus speech freedom, the court completed or ignored the distinction between public and private action, which is essential to the proper application of the bill of rights to protect private individuals from the government. in other words, the government does not get first amendment rights. private individuals do. what the court decision does is it allows hastings to exclude cls. it allows the government to exclude speech to does not like and says that is because the private actor is excluding speech. it turned the first amendment on its head. it got the decision the record. it is ironic that hastings put all of its eggs in the basket of an all comers policy and said, "this is a necessary policy.

we have to have it. we apply it across our campus. yet we do not have to let all students into our free speech policy." that is the irony of the decision. the damage done to the first amendment comes in the form of the idea that the state -- the court is very clear. the state could not pass a law forbidding religious groups to choose their leaders according to their religious beliefs. that would be a horrible affront to the first amendment. but the state can condition benefits and access to its beach forum and to its property on that very same thing that would be an affront if they point blank said you could not choose your readers -- your leaders according to religious belief. we do not have a small government. we have a government that owns a lot of land and a lot of speech forums, and a lot of benefit

programs. it is troubling that the court said government can require citizens to forfeit their first amendment rights, to have a basic right of access to a speech forum. i think the courts wandered a real opportunity. in our brief, we explain how everyone can win with the right decision in this case. if the first amendment were upheld for cls, it is a call for everyone. we have a marketplace of ideas were if people do not like our views, we can talk about it. people's minds can be change one way or another. that is what the first amendment is for. i think at its core the supreme court majority lost faith in the first amendment and abandoned that basic function of the first amendment to operate the marketplace of ideas. everyone lost. not only the religious groups,

but all of the speakers. i have to final comments. i think it is very dangerous to label a sizable segment of the religious community in this country as discriminators. discrimination policies are crucial to protecting minority rights in this country. when you tell people, you thought you were protected as a religious group from discrimination, but you are actually the discriminator, that lessons public support for discrimination policy. i think that is a dangerous outcome. it also means that in any situation, and there are so many across the country right now, where gay marriage is being discussed or enacted, or where sexual orientation is being added to discrimination policy,

religious groups, almost by definition, have to opposed those provisions because they cannot be sure they will be given the exemptions they need, and that is an unfortunate result. finally, we were joined not only by christian groups, but by jewish, muslim and sikh groups to say that groups need to have the right to choose their leaders. they said that this policy would appoint a judicial dagger at the heart of the jewish community in the united states by committing that community to be relegated to the status of a second-class group.

hopefully, we will have a more narrow decision so that the rights of not only religious groups, but all multicultural groups will be protected. >> i am not an attorney and so i was not intimately involved in this case. that will become obvious in a couple of minutes. i am an ex college debater, a sort of very rapidly, which will also become obvious in a couple of minutes. there is a distinction between a melodrama and a drama. when there is a clear-cut evil, there is an undeniable desire to do good. when someone is tied to the

train tracks and a hero comes along to save her, we know who to root for. drama gives the stresses that are not always so clear cut. the line between good and evil is blurred, and sometimes the choice is in distinct. in this case, it appears that we're watching a drama. like many cases of this sort, the issues coming together attempt to balance it things that are undeniably good, the desire to repudiate discrimination on campus, to destroy its cancerous effect and demonstrate unconditional support for it to the freedom -- unconditional support for the freedom to live with the stain -- without stain. assuming pure motives on the part of all participants, this case that separate values

against each other. it brings together two set of jurisprudence. cases that protect against discrimination and cases that protect the free exercise of religion, speech and association are pitted against each other. in these brief remarks, i want to make a couple of observations about the court decision and perhaps a step outside the issues of constitutional law and judicial process and deal with primarily political analysis. first, with respect to the constitutional law that emerges from the case, i am confident that others have and will address whether or not the accord adequately interpreted the president's -- precedents.

my observations are probably far less profound, but it does seem to me that the court has changed the nature of what is required in public forum analysis and a significant way. recently, the court has established the jurisprudence to protect speakers or those who would worship in public places, or those who would publish ideas against the power of government. the court held that should the government or any agent of government establish a limited public forum, then that forum must be both content and viewpoint neutral. colleges and universities, high schools and public facilities need not make them available, but should they happen to make

student fee is available, they must have a viewpoint neutrality. the objective is to protect the advocates ability to engage in or extend political debate. in this case the court holds that the government has satisfied its burden to create neutrality by creating a policy that releases the advocates. the policy is not that they must pay a nominal fee or meet restrictions, the policy is that they would be an advocate can only receive recognition is said that the kid is a viewpoint neutral. the burden -- it said advocate is viewpoint neutral. if the community makes an auditorium available to planned parenthood, they must also make it available to pro-life groups.

it makes them available to the republican party, it must make them available to the democratic party. they must allow jewish groups, islamic groups and campus freethinkers to publish their thoughts, and christian thinkers should have equal access to disability. they must expand debate by permitting groups to speak even if they are in sharp disagreement. each recognized group must itself be viewpoint neutral according to this law. in an effort to quell discrimination, hastings is requiring a whole range of disputation as part of the qualified in house debate

tournament before it can really get into the larger debate of trying to persuade others of the rightness of their positions. the christian group must hear that jesus did not exist, that god is a lie, that muhammed is god's true profit, or that the genesis came from extraterrestrial life. rather than requiring the government to take measures to expand the robust exchange of ideas which seems to be the central message of the various public forum cases, this decision allows the government to put restrictions on the would be advocates that might limit its ability -- limit its ability to carry off a debate. christian groups can have bible studies and the young democrat society can meet after school, but the christian group must be

open to those who would study richard dawkins and the democrats must be open to the tea party movement. of course, the anomaly of requiring groups to take in members who might be set on destroying the group was a cornerstone of the argument at trial. it was a large component of justice alito is a dissenting opinion. he believes groups are permitted to protect themselves from those who are at odds with their ideas and principles. my concern is different. it is that this case allows the government to use a competing constitutional principle under

the guise of fighting the cancer of discrimination, when perhaps only the reasonable policy position is to shift the requirement to the viewpoint neutral down to the would be advocates. the result is that they may not be able to find a forum or articulate a message, and the public square will be less robust. moving into the area beyond constitutional law into constitutional theory, justice stevens seems to be suggesting that an optional program should be made available to participating groups. this affects the ability of

certain groups took participate in discourse. that is at odds with the way the course -- the court is treating this case. justice ginsberg asserts depth -- asserts that the court need not address the policy because it has been interpreted as permitting all comers and has therefore stipulated to the existence of the all comers interpretation before trial and therefore the court need not address the impact of the nondiscrimination policy. just as alito notes that the amount of nondiscrimination policy was the only thing addressed in 2004.

this stipulation simply recognized the interpretation in place when the case was scheduled to go to trial. alito says they challenged the original policy from the outset. other groups were recognized by the law school prior to the supplication without the requirement that they take in all comers. i do not know whether justice alito was correct or not. there is a special nature of the supreme court. why should it be above the political gamesmanship the characterizes legislative policy making? alito must know that the court was applying simple rules to simple procedures. if he is correct, he shines a light on civil use -- civil lawyers using civil procedure correctly to desire -- to attain the desired outcome. the court needs to appear to play its part well. he notes that there are many ways to play hamlet and many

actors to do so but at the end of the day the audience must believe the actor played his part well. i am wondering if one who reads this decision in its entirety my question whether the court played its part well. finally, i would like to bring up politics. it seems like a phenomenon and contemporary political debate is polarization of parties. one might assert that the distance between conservatives and liberals is less pronounced. on the famous seven. scale they might clustered around a three and five. now might be closer to it to end a six or even a one and a seventh, why? because they listen to those in media reinforce their beliefs. they assert that the other side is not simply wrong, but bad guys. liberals are the enemy of

freedom. they by definition cannot be patriots. conservatives are the enemy of freedom. there by definition racist, sexist and homophobic. to the extent that this characterization is true, the potential for our democracy to flourish is may be in need of serious repair. in the defense of the law school policy, he notes that groups must include jews, blacks, women, or those who share contempt for jews, blacks and women. it is stunning that someone of justice stevens considerable intellectual power believes that the motivation for asking to limit a group to like-minded believers must be contempt for

jews, blacks and women. his remarks suggest that he does. perhaps there are enough people out there wishing to separate because they have contempt for those groups, so he has reason to be gun shy. but the assertion that the group is motivated by such concerns seems to be absurd. much like the conservatives who cannot see the deep love of country in many of their political counterpart and say as much a public rallies, the comments suggest another counselor -- another cancer that threatens the democracy of our country. >> thank you.

thank you for inviting me to participate in this panel. i serve a religious organization that is informed by baptist history and believes in the separation of church and state as a means for protecting religious freedom. i was asked to be part of this panel because i am in a unique position. i have thought about this case quite a lot because there really is a fascinating, multifaceted case. i come to this as a friend-of- the-court.

we have filed more than 100 cases, mostly religious freedom cases before the court. this case drew a large number of a meek as briefs -- of briefs. there was one that we filed on behalf of neither party. president of to do not know how the process works, it is a way to bring a larger perspective to one aspect of the case or may be put the case in a different view to make sure that the whole of the case is litigated in a way that the court sees all angles. filing behalf of neither party is not unusual. it is not as if we're saying nobody wins. it means that our point is not which side wins, but that we

want to offer what was significant to us. we wanted a decision that would resolve the conflict between competing goals of religious autonomy and nondiscrimination. mindful of this particular context, without doing damage to broader religious freedom, for us, this case was not a central free exercise case, our perspective on religious liberty is that you have to have very strong protection as well as make sure the government does not promote religion in order to have maximum religious freedom for all. but this case shows depth -- shows that in order to have true religious liberty, you have to have free speech and religious autonomy, to define yourself,

however that is. that was one aspect we thought it would be interesting to be involved in and make sure that we brought some of our history to that to show the significance of the defense of religious liberty to protect the autonomy of religious groups. about religious liberty. protecting religious liberty for all is not content specific. it does not matter if you're believes are common or widely accepted or admired, or if there uncommon and a great odds with the beliefs of the majority. we were not interested in this case because of a particular practice requiring all members to sign a fayed statement and being able to exclude people to make sure -- signed a faith statement in being able to exclude people to make sure that you have total conformity, or to

have nondiscrimination go so far as to have an open membership policy. we are really looking at this as a religious liberty issue beyond the particular party is in this case. as others have said, we saw this case as a clash of values between religious identity, autonomy, self definition, and on the other hand, providing educational environment that is open and accessible to all students regarding -- regardless of any status in a particular category. how do you resolve the with this particular case? cls comes with a religious liberty interest. they're trying to protect to they are. this appeared to be a general equal access case. i think back to the equal access act of 1984. became a time when there is a great fight to get prayer back in school. there was an amendment to the

constitution that we need more government support of prayer in schools, of which did not pass. but the idea is that there is individual free speech, freedom of religion, not sponsored by the state, and you have a distance. there is not an establishment clause problem because there is no entanglement, and the sponsorship, no government money involved. so this looked like an equal access case. surely, as css -- cls should be able to operate in this forum. then the school said they would not let you define yourself. they would keep you out if you did not let everyone in. i do not think this is a smart policy. i do not think that schools are

going to rush to. so why did we file? there was an aspect of this case that is not often talked about but that was important to religious liberty, and that was the sponsorship. as i said, the idea of equal access goes with the idea that government cannot promote religion. religions are different. in the constitution it is treated separately. the concern is that we would never sponsor religion through the government. while equal access is common, i do not know that hastings policy particularly, with all of its lists of benefits, is that common. the way was litigated it looked like hastings -- if you're an officially organized student organization, you get a room,

you could use the school logo, you got money to go to a national conference with. cls would get money they could use. that was a problem. we cannot come to their side and say that they deserve the money. there were a little worried about that. it was hastings fall. they bundled equal access without the money. -- with the money. we were concerned about money going to religious groups for these activities. the establishment clause,

particularly treats religion differently. there is no money for religious organizations or non secular purpose. that was a very disturbing part of the case, the second part of a reprieve done with that. we distinguish rosenberger. justice kennedy actually wrote wrote burger -- r rosenberger, but he said, we have a separation of church and state, and this is different. i found this quite confusing. i'm still not sure exactly what he was thinking, but it felt different. so when we were looking at the case, we did our part. we said religious liberty requires that you protect

religious autonomy so that they can define their membership in the way they won. we're troubled by the fact that the school also instigates the money. there was an indication of sponsorship. hastings did a pretty good job of focusing on this particular policy, this all comers policy. they said we're not doing equal access, but we're doing is paying -- we're doing this thing, that is how they design their forum. we are thinking about how we wanted this case to come out. we wanted a narrow decision that would not harm regardless -- harm religious freedom regardless of which side. i would say to a large extent we got that. the majority opinion is not without problems. there is some language there that is quite unseemly.

there is some language that i think it's problematic. we will not really know until both sides continue to push the boundaries exactly what that means. but i think this case focused on up in membership or all comers. hastings said this is the kind of group we have, we have one or everybody can come in or out. i think the case was really decided based on that. and they decided that was a policy and stipulation in play that led to the outcome. i will say that while there is no real establishment clause issue litigated, i cannot help but think that that is sorted in the background. there is something different about a lot of entanglement involvement with the student groups that make it feel differently. i would not ever justify the kind of things that justice stevens said, and it is noteworthy that he was alone in

that opinion, but i think the school did not want to be associated with any viewpoint that was in conflict with their nondiscrimination policy. with that, i want to point to the beginning of justice ginsberg opinion. she said, in requiring student organizations to choose between allowing all students and for going the benefits of a special -- of official regulations, we all did hastings did not transgress constitutional regulations. the first amendment shields against state's prohibition of the organizations expressed activity. cls enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its activity.

i was not very familiar with the word. it means the provision of finance will -- of financial assistance. there were other comments about registered student organizations, that they were eligible for financial assistance. the all comers policy, the court said, ensured that no hastings student is forced to find a group that would reject her as a member. -- fund a group that would reject her as a member. i am concerned about making sure that we keep our eye upon keeping religion an arms length from the government.

the government should not have equal sponsorship or promotion of religion. it will be interesting to see have the case will be used by people not only in the religious freedom area but in other areas and future cases. i think we have not seen the end of controversy as these kinds of campus roles develope. thank you very much. >> thank you for having me. i am the assistant legal director for americans united for the separation of church and state. we are committed to keeping

church and state separate in order to protect religious liberty. we filed a brief in this case as well on behalf of hastings law school. that makes my role here kind of the contrarian one. but i will develop in some detail some of the themes that holly started with. the title of this panel is christian legal society reverses martina's and the future of religious freedom in society. we have heard how religious liberty and freedom is threatened. we have heard how political debate might be threatened as well. i think those are miss descriptions. i think so because they start out with a mis-description of what the case is actually about. first amendment freedoms are not threatened because the case was not about the student's free exercise of religion, and it was

not about excluding anybody from campus. the students have the religious freedom to worship or not as they please. they have the freedom to get together in a club of like- minded students and to teach and preach to discuss and pray and argue and debate, what ever they want, however they want. there is no limit placed on any one hastings speech. the policy here was actually about something entirely different. what hastings said was that if you, as a group of students, want to form an official club, and you want to get money -- this is what pauli was talking about -- you want to get money in the form of sponsorship from the school, you have to comply with a couple of rules. the rules are that any student who wants to be a member is entitled to be a member. you pay dues, go to the meetings and can join the organization.

any students who wants to run for an officer position, not necessarily win, but run, is entitled to do that as well. now, you are a little bit about the stipulation in the case. it was not a legally binding agreement about what the facts are. legal cases always turn in the end on the facts. they help us jay powell returned -- how we think about the law. in this case -- they helped us think about the law. some of you may agree that the policy was a bad idea. for instance, you could end up with a republican president of the campus democrats or vice versa. others of you may think that the all comers policy is sensible and valuable because, first of all, as the majority of the

supreme court put it, the policy ensures that no hastings student is forced to fund a group that would reject her as a member. you might think the policy is good for another reason. justice kennedy explained that students might learn better if they act cooperatively to learn from and teach each other through better actions in social and intellectual context because a vibrant and dialogue is not possible if students wall themselves off from opposing point of a view. justice kennedy did not say that it is a bad thing for cls to have the statement of faith. what he said was that it might be reasonable for hastings to think that it once the clubs it officially sponsors and pays for it to have a different view about how students are going to interact with each other. the legal question year, the only legal question that the court addressed, had nothing to do with whether that policy was

a good one or a bad one. you can take what you want done that. frankly, there are lots of stupid laws on the books. whether this is good or bad is something we can talk about, but it is a whole different issue. the legal issue is solely whether this policy is constitutionally permissible. does it violate anyone's constitutional rights for the school tuesday that it will fund only those clubs that adhered -- for the school to say that it will fund only those clubs that adhere to its all comers policy? cls seeks not parity with other organizations but a preferential exemption from hastings policy. remembered about 20 years ago, we had a federal law that said that if states wanted federal dollars for highway construction they had to adopt a 55 mile per hour speed limit. congress did not adopt that. it could not. there is a constitutional limitation on its ability to do so, but it said if you want the

money, you have to adopt the speed limit. if you do not want the money, if you do not want to adopt the speed limit, you can forgo the money and let people drive as fast as they want to. what the court said is setpoint -- what the court said is that cls is seeking money from the government the same way states might have been seeking money for the government, and there is a quid pro quo. they will have to take the -- if they take the money they will have to pay the price. that is why there is a disagreement. call the court said its that -- all the court said is that it is not unconstitutional for the school to have that policy. in short, this case is not about impinging on anybody's religious

freedom, it is about if the state gets to decide how to allocate its money or not. does the university gets to decide that it really cares about equal access for all students so that it will not fund activities unless all students have the ability to participate on equal terms, or does any group have the right to say, we do not like this policy, we are not going to follow it, but you have to give us money anyway? is hastings allowed to tell this group and has to make a choice? the supreme court said yes, it is allowed to give cls and that choice, because after all, it is a choice. it is also the case that giving them that choice does not interfere with their ability to have a club, a religious club or any other sort of club. there are over 60 clubs on all sorts of issues, a pro-life and

a pro-choice club for instance. more interesting is this. for about a decade before this chapter became this chapter, it was called the hastings christian fellowship. it was an officially recognized club that got money from the school, but the recognition, the whole thing. the students in the club talk to the same issues. they conducted the same sorts of programs. they held an espoused the same religious beliefs. how do i know that? they were the same students. what happened was that in your 11 the students in that group decided that they wanted to become a chapter -- in year 11, the students decided that they wanted to become a chapter rather than an independent group. in order to become the chapter, they had to exclude anyone who did not share their beliefs and to exclude anyone who engaged

in "an unrepentant homosexual conduct." in 2003-2004, the year just before they became a chapter, there was an openly gay member of the hastings christian fellowship, and the rest of the students thought that was a pretty good thing. there were students the testified that it made the bible discussions more interesting by bringing new perspective. only when they were required to start discriminating, and i am going to use that word, the board can be value leighton but isn't necessarily -- that word can devalue laden -- be value- laden, but isn't necessarily. it was only when cls was told

that they had to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation that hastings said, o.k. you can still use the room and meet, but we are not going to give you money and you cannot call yourself an official hastings group. one of the things you did not hear about today was one of the major arguments that cls made in the case, and it is one of the last things i want to talk about. what cls argued was that you should not have to give up excluding people, making choices in this way about him to admit, because if it has to let in non- christian and gay students, how can it sustain its identity as a christian group? if it has to lead in jews and atheists, they could come in, so goes the argument, takeover the club, and it would cease to be

cls and become something else. none of that happened here, and honestly, it is not going to happen either. for a decade we had the hastings christian fellowship and it did just fine. when the group became a chapter and had to then become an unofficial group on campus, its membership actually doubled. they ended up doing better because of the change. more importantly, there was never a padre of atheists trying to sneak into the club and make it anti christians, or cut pada cadre of gay students tryig to sneak in and make it gave. we all know that students self select. students who do not share the beliefs of this group are probably not going to join or try to take over the club membership. they would go to the

episcopalian group down the street, go to hell, joined the case alliance, ore. -- go to hillal, joined at the gate/straight alliance -- join the gay-straight alliance, or work on the law review. i do not know that this case will end up being an especially important supreme court decision. i think there is nothing novel about the decision the government gets to decide how to spend its money. that is not government discriminating. to get back to where i started with the title of the panel, what is the future of religious liberty in america after this case? i think it is the same as it was

before this case. cls and other groups get to run their meetings any way they want, and they are able to seek money from the government as long as they abide by neutral, generally applicable policies. and if they do not, they can go often to their own thing, still be present and a force on campus, but not have the special financial sponsorship. and they get to make that choice. that is where the law is. that is where it has been, and i frankly think nothing has changed. >> i am sure our panelists want to respond to each other, but you will have been very patient. if there are any questions from the audience, we will take them now. you can address people as an individual or the panel as a whole. >> what guarantee can you give

us that this will happen? you do not know that, do you? and let me follow that up. the person -- the great majority of colleges were started as evangelical or catholic. the percentage the still adheres to their religious doctrines it 10% or less.l, therefore, we have an historical record that institutions are infiltrated and their religious teachings are stopped. when the israeli ambassador to rise to speak at college campuses, the crowds are infiltrated and he is shouted down by muslim students.

given this history, we can guarantee that these clubs will infiltrated and taken over, and that that will result in a contraction of free speech. >> the laws will have policies -- a law school has policies that protect against what you are talking about. you do not go in and disrupt meetings. that is something the university can and does put a stop to. that is something the group can too. disorderly conduct is not the issue. what we actually see in the record here, ups will we see in the way these groups are functioning in the lawsuit -- what we see in the way these groups are functioning in the law school -- is it unthinkable that people will come in and try to take cover these groups? i think that it is but you might have a different point of view.

even if somebody takes it over, the people who are displaced still have a place to go. i understand that may not be entirely satisfying to you, but the issue is really does. concern here is to say that what its sponsors has to be open to all students. it is not to say that students cannot form their own groups and exclude people as they wish. when i rose in school, we had a bridge group. -- when i was in law school, we had a great group. -- a bridge a group. it was a group of friends.

if we had made it an official groups, anyone would have been able to join. i would not have been able to say, we are meeting at my house and you are not my friend, you cannot come. instead, we were not an official group, and we were able to have our activity. what happens is, the group's make a choice, and if they think it is a real danger that they are going to get swallowed up -- something there is nothing here to suggest is going to happen -- then they have another mechanism to keep having their activity in whatever way they want to. >> i would like to present a rival the publicists -- arrival hypophysis -- a rival hypothesis.

>> it does strike me that this broader culture war on which people on both sides [unintelligible] it gay marriage becomes a civil right, i do not see how that university can continue to exist.

would it not be useful to develop a commission of people on all sides of this issue to develop policies that we could all live with? as a liberal, it is is here for that then some. use referendum to marginalize gays. liberals tried to use courts and human rights commissions to the right. not think that is very productive. really believed in representation, it seems to me on better alternatives that we could make reasonable accommodations. i think this case has to be seen the broader culture war. does anyone want to respond to that? we thought that a lot of this had been worked out, as you are

discussing, in some groups. i am trying to think of the name of the organization that governs law schools. they had actually given the exemption to religious law schools regarding what date did and did not have to do if they found out students or is engaged in homosexual conduct. judges have an exemption and can belong to any religious group they want, whether or not it discriminates. that is in the judicial canons of ethics. these types of things were being worked out, and i think that is a really good idea. >> i would like to add one thing. i think it is a great idea and something you should continue to work on and seek as one who sees these kind of complex. it is extremely difficult. we're trying to recognize in each other of the legitimate concerns and give respect to each other.

it is a difficult process, but i think we see it in a variety of contexts, where these values clash. >> a desire to follow up on something he just said. you said something the sounded very reasonable. the government is saying, here is a benefit, and if you do not want it, you do not have to comply. but how far does that go in terms of say, pell grants, loans for religious colleges, and basic services the government provides? can the government say that fire services, police services -- that would be extreme obviously, but what a range of services and benefits can the government say, you do not have to have access to these things, but to have access you have to abandon your religious principles?

>> well, look. drawing lines can always be difficult, no doubt about it. what the courts have done in trying to work these things out is to recognize the differences, first of all, between a legal requirement that you have to obey no matter what, legal requirements that puts pressure on you, like, if you are a needy person, the only option for health care or food is to go to a publicly funded social service, or things that are added benefits on top of that. college scholarships and things like that have generally fallen into category three. can i tell you exactly where the lines are? no. but i think the broader answer

is to say that the more coercive the governmental activity is, the more government control, the more likely it is where we say that is not something the government gets to pick and choose. we also say something else, which is that hastings does not get to say, we are going to fund groups whose message w like but not groups whose message we dislike. that is not the test. it is that hastings can regulate certain sorts of conduct to make the group's, the organizational structure work. it cannot say if you talk about either pro gay marriage or anti- gay-marriage in your clubs, we will find that, but we will not

fund the other side. we look at your conduct, not your speech, neither advocacy. i think that goes a long way toward beginning to -- again, there are subtle distinctions, but it is not something we cannot get our fingers around at all. >> i think no one disputes the proposition that the government, if the ones to retain outside contractors to build a road, for example, that it is a violator -- violation to build a school instead of a road. if the government is providing money, you must comply with what the money is for. the problem have with justice ginsburg's opinion is that it collapses everything into subsidy, which i think reflects a tremendous mistake. there is no difference between

giving access to a room and access to money. i think holly is onto something when she says that there may be a distinction when you talk about access to communication mechanisms, meeting space and money. i would add is a rejoinder that the supreme court itself has rejected that view at least in the context of public university funding student organizations and funding their speech. there are circumstances in which the conveyance of money should not be thought of as a subsidy but be thought of as one ad on to the bundle of benefits you get from the speech. bob -- but if it is true that the government can call everything a subsidy and the unconditional access to the thesidy is based on -- indee

conditional access to the subsidy is based on compliance with our role, that means several other cases are wrong, and it means the government has power that takes us where we do not want to go. >> but as one to give a quick update on an e-mail i received -- i just want to give a quick update on an e-mail i received last night. a chapter just discovered that its president does not hold orthodox views regarding the trinity. if they were at hastings, they could not do anything. they would have to suck it up for the year. hopefully, since they're not at the college they will be ok. >> a lot also makes distinctions about direct and indirect

benefits. it may not be satisfying to everyone, but if you work in the establishment clause area, that is one of the lines they draw. if they pay their printing costs, use a contractor, get reimbursements -- we are not on that side for rosenberger, but that was not used to argue that case. it is a long way from saying the people cannot get a pell grant to go to university if they won. there is a difference between direct funding, a direct benefit, and more incidental kinds of money. >> i also think that the sort of slippery slope argument just is

not quite accurate for a couple of reasons. one is that, to suggest there is a danger that this is going to mean access to public forums get its limited, this is not a traditional public forum. it is not a street corner speaker having a parade down the street, all of the areas we think of as classic first amendment activity. what is is a law school saying we do not have to have any clubs. we are going to allow them. we're going to allow them for a particular purpose. it gets to define those purposes assuming that they do not transgress relatively narrow constitutional limits. then it has to abide by those rules and it cannot pick and choose and unfairly grant benefits to people of the forum. but it is a different level of analysis for the simple reason functionsway this club is different than the way street

corner speaker's function. the way you behave in a classroom is different than the way you would writing a letter to the editor. those distinctions matter, and it is a categorical mistake to say that the characters of differences between the ways of speaking and ways of acting threatens the whole world of activity. >> a want to bring it back to the question she raised a minute ago. there were points raised in the argument that were pretty compelling. people can still say what they want, they can do with the one, at the generosity of the law school they still got rooms and things like that.

the court said that no student should have to pay for a club where she could not be a member. the third thing is that what they really want is a situation where all students can participate on equal terms. a desire to make an observation. i will grant you that comment -- and will grant you that even without official met -- official membership, students can meet and speak and pray if they want. but there is something beneficial about official membership. there was language in brown versus the board of education where the court said that even if a place that wanted to practice of separate but equal built brick by brick, book by book, the same facilities, they are still not equal because of

some of these intangible factors that come up with official recognition. that is something this group is denied. maybe it is better to play non officially recognized bridge or monopoly, but there seems to be there seems to be something, that goes along with official membership. if i am a member, i am being asked to pay for groups that may not take me as a member or want me to be an officer and a club. i guess i am thinking that is fine as long as i can start my own group or we can coalesce around the ideas we feel to be important. and that is what seems to be the policy at most colleges and universities. that seemed to be the policy at hastings, prio to the shifting of the nondiscrimination language.

-- prior to the shifting of the nondiscrimination language. i am not so sure that the ability to form groups, that take on the groups that disagree with the other groups, is not what richard is asking for which is that all students have all the right suit for dissipate on equal terms. maybe that would be a good launching point, whether or not we would follow the suggestion the court is suggesting or this alternative as a way to satisfy the need to protect against discrimination, as long as on a macro level, people have the right to form their own group. >> time for one more question. >> let me try to turn this on its head for a second and take a look at the questions. who gets to decide what is discriminatory and what is not? what happens if a group wants to include people that say, the

school or institution that does not want them to include? and i flipped this over to say, the exclusion of military recruiters on campus. what of the christian legal society wanted to allow them at their event and the school wanted to cut off funds for that sort of thing on the opposite end? what happens if it slips? how does hasting reflect? forgive me if there might be a simple answer to this, but i am not a lawyer. >> you are inadvertently touching on an aspect of form analysis. one of the ways but that -- that forum can be limited. one of the ways it can be limited espied the identity of the speaker or the identity of

the people -- the identity of the speaker or the identity of the people that make up the group. i think it is reasonable for our university to say that we want our student groups to be student groups. i mean, that is the sort of parameter of all four of that i think the court had in mind when he created a limited public forum doctrine. if, say, hastings, christian legal society or any other student group said it, we want the president of our group to be this outside person who has no connection with the group at all. i think that is probably a reasonable form parameter. what if hastings is saying, we want to forbid you from associating with certain people because we do not like what they say or what they stand for? that strikes me as a different animal, and probably, a court would be inclined to say that that feels like or is a viewpoint discrimination. it is that person's particular

view that causes us to exclude you from the four appeared your associational act with that person, it is their view. that we have a problem with. not the fact that they are not outside person or a non-student. is that responsive to your question? the short answer is that hastings is to decide what its policy nmeans. >> the subsidy issue comes in there. one of the issues is a big military recruiters coming on campus is, if you do not want this government organization, will they withhold funding or loans or what have you on that? i know that gets into the personal on that. whether it is funding the person or the institution. but there is a little of that opposite in we do not like the policy of the government but we want your funding from the government's. whereas, the situation there is we have with the christian legal

society, we do not like your all-comers policy, but we still want your funding. how is this different on all legal basis? >> i do not want to monopolize. >> when the supreme court decided in the military recruitment case, it said that campuses could be told, if you want the funding, you have to open up to the military recruiters because the military recruiters are not becoming members or leaders of the university. they were being brought in for a day or two. there were now becoming professors or deans. there were now becoming the president. in that decision, the court itself, if they were, if they would be in a position that could affect the expression of the school, then you would have the protection of expressive association. we actually thought that was a very good dicta by the court

just three years ago. that is the difference between the situations. cls is saying you cannot withhold funding in order to force us to be a different group by having leaders we do not agree with. >> the last question. you have been patient. we need to make it quick, though. >> a larger constitutional history. do you think is a city of 00 -- v. flores would have gone a different way, then the case went on a different way? >> yes. then we would have had a strong and free exercise claim to make. >> i wish the city had gone the other way for a lot of reasons. i will defer to him as the main litigant in this case. yes, it would make a difference. >> let me again close by inviting you to join us at 6:15 in the same room.

please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> sunday on "newsmakers", coastguard admiral talks about the impact of the gulf of mexico oil and the budget challenges of the coast guard at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> there is nothing about finance that is rocket science. this is the most frustrating thing for me, but you think about ponzi schemes. the biggest ponzi scheme for wall street is telling someone who has worked really hard to earn a dollar that they are not smart enough to understand how that dollar will be invested. >> in 2007, meredith whitney was

the first to predict major losses for citigroup, and she is our guest sunday night on c- span's "q&a". >> the obama administration increased sanctions against north korea and froze assets of individuals and organizations a link to its nuclear program. a discussion on the future of north korea, hosted by the marine corps university. it is two hours and 20 minutes. >> we welcome all of you very much to our center to discuss a strategic challenges on the korean peninsula. our thanks to general miller and the university for coming and setting the stafe for this --

the stage for this. mr. ambassador we are grateful for your help. >> the timing is perfect. no matter when we decide to do a discussion on korea, it seems that international conditions are there that may get as relevant as it has ever been -- make it as relevant as it has ever been. we are marking the 60 years after the korean war. we were in a state of armistice. it should not come as any surprise to you bet, with the treaty obligations we have with the countries on the western

pacific, there is a misstep on the peninsula, amid speculation over a pile of rocks -- a calculation over a pile of rocks. and the command relationship peace would be in very -- be very important. i need not remind you of the incidents that have happened recently. one of our former presidents just returned from the peninsula. secretary of state has been in the peninsula recently. the south koreans lost a ship. there are all kinds of things that make this conference and the timings of this conference very important, and i think it is an important contribution that the university makes it to continue its education, not only

for the students here, the next two semesters attending this year, but for the faculty and other people who gather for conferences like this. collins is a friend of everyone who has served in the peninsula. we welcome you to the platform to deliver a paper on setting the stage on talks and discussions about the sinking of the south korean ship. thank you. >> thank you, general partner. i certainly want to thank the man who invited me to speak. i would like to thank the marine corps university. not working? any technical assistance that

can help me. ok, i will just speak loud. thanks to the marine corps university, the foundation, and the korea economic institute for putting this on. i think the doctor for selecting me to participate in this. basically i am here to call the north korean regime at bad guys. when i talk about them, i do not mean that the people. i mean the north korean regime and those that lead to the regime. i am kind of surprised that we have so many people here today, because our diplomatic performance over the last 30 years, there was not a lot of people interested in north korea. but -- ok. how's that? i do not think there is any difference.

the alliance, and when i talk about the alliance -- is this better? too good. when i refer to the alliance, i mean the south koreans and the americans. they have gone on a good job and i had a front row seat for the last 30 years watching how effective that alliance has then at deterring war on the peninsula. from the same seat, i saw they did not do a good job in deterring provocation, because it happens all the time. everybody's sitting in this room remembers and third and fourth grade, the bully trying to take their lunch money. essentially, for several past decades, the north koreans have been doing that to us on a regular basis and, and we keep

letting them do it. everybody knows the way to stop a bully is to stand up to him. and we do that sometimes, but we do not do it often enough where it deters those provocations. many of these are fairly serious, like five times on the president, the sinking of the south korean ship. i could go on and on. if you want to see a list, you could go to our website. we have a great list of major provocations by the north koreans. i will not bore you with all of that. but certainly, the north koreans are very good students of close using the military as a political and diplomatic tool. their policies have worked very well. as one looks at the ship, how the north koreans have shaped the northern limit line,

they have done a good job of doing that. we have done a pretty good job of maintaining the status quo out there. it came at a severe price -- the sailors that died on that ship are just one price. our response was quite limited. we had a big exercise, we bring in an air france -- aircraft carrier. it looks good. it will not change anything for the north koreans. they came out looking pretty good in their own estimate. one must be thinking they are sitting in the red house and celebrating and saying, the chinese and russians support us anyway, even if we embarrassed the chinese by going to seafood jintao. just a couple weeks after the incident, it does not matter.

china and russia continued to use their own interests to shape their response. they give tacit approval to north korea and to continue. our lack of response does the same thing. i am not suggesting we go to war, but if we do not learn to take out targets there really hurt them in response, and some form of retaliation, then they will continue to do this like a bully on the playground will continue to take lunch money. the north koreans have done a pretty good job of using provocations as their military tool to shape us . when they do not do that, such as during the agreed framework, they basically take an where theyl pauses, gained some concessions, and we

did, too, in terms of delaying some of their programs. but for the most part, those are operational pauses. looking at the diplomatic military history of north korea year after year, they have progressed fairly well in being able to intimidate us. they do not have a lot of money. they have great weaknesses. if we ever went to war on the peninsula, we would kick their butt. but that is about to change. in their missile and nuclear programs have come along way and there are people in this room that know that particular issue a lot better than i do. but if we get to the point where we permit them to field a mobile, missile, nuclear-armed missile system that we cannot find because they move it around, then we have all whole new ballgame. and how we deal with that, who

knows? we had a hard time finding scuds in desert storm. it will be worse in the mountainous terrain of the. north korea we have pushed this problem down the road, and a half advanced their capabilities. they show us that they have done nuclear tests notwithstanding. so our problem is, what we do to deter future provocations? as north korea continues to shape not only the nll, but shape the alliance for their own interests, our problem is going to be that, because we are politically sensitive to going to war and because seoul is located so close and is so vulnerable, we take cause ourselves in determining what

our response may or may not be. in general, we do not have one. we all know there are a lot of factors that go into regional considerations and whatnot. and it is not a military problem, per se. over decades, several -- and dozens of fine officers and their staff have created excellent plans on how to defend the republic of korea. every single day, very fine officers and their staff think about how we have to protect and defend the republic of korea, both on the korean side and on the u.s. side. i have seen this for the last 30 years. that is not the problem. it is the political will on both sides of the alliance to exercise some form of response that will deter provocations. so i would like to talk just a

few more things here about what we can do to change that. first of all, we have to learn to recognize the north koreans for who they are. that is a pretty trite statement. you have probably all heard that several times, from the political left and right. you hear that stuff all the time. let's talk about exactly who they are. a totalitarian regime, where there are no human-rights allowed, except for one, kim jong il. bent on destabilizing the south korean government and, even if the opportunity prevent -- presented itself, forceful unification. they have no intent of creating some sort of compromise whereby the south and north and peacefully live together. so somehow thinking that regime,

which inculcates every single individual in north korea from the farmer and his children to the president of the standing committee of the supreme people's assembly, every single person is inculcated every single day on one of value, and that value is loyalty to kim jong-il appeared if you think you can get away with not being loyal there, it is a down the road to the death camps or you or killed right away. there is no consensus on the public opinion. there is no feed on how we can do things differently, and less kim jong il asks you individually. that kind of a value system does not create an opportunity for compromise on their side. so we need to recognize that, that they will not change as long as that regime remains in tact.

separately, and when i see that, all of our political leaders need to understand that. that has not always been true. we can look on our allies' side, in the last 10 years. they have not been all that great in recognizing the north koreans for what they are. secondly, we need to narrow the political seems within the alliance. too freely we have administrations in the united states and south korea that are voting in the opposite direction every single time, where you have one more conservative in administration and a liberal administration on one side and the balance changes. that is not the crux of the problem, because of the united states usually there is some realism attached to the alliance and the value of the alliance, but in terms of when and how we do something and deciding what

is the right thing to do, there is always the major difference of opinion somewhere that impacts any decision we have about deterrence and defense. a great example is the president of the republic of korea saying, it is a sovereign country toward why can i commend my own troops? it seems there is a problem in the blue house that an understanding of those kinds of issues. the president of the republic of korea always commands his troops. no exception. if there is a crisis and there is going to be a war, he has to take the active step of saying, i will take these forces and give them to the combined forces command, that happens to have a u.s. commander, and give him operational control. not command, but operational control to conduct the war. at any time he wants to, he

takes back some of his forces or he disagrees with it and has his commanders do something different. so, we need the narrow the seams politically within the alliance. we formally used to have a meeting process that was called that two plus two. that was their minister of national defense and foreign affairs and on the u.s. side was the commander of the command -- forces command and the u.s. ambassador. it happened frequently in the 1990's and during the past decade that this wandered away. we need to institutionalize that. we need for those four individuals to get together and work out the differences politically in terms of securing matters on the peninsula. thinking about how the blue

house's record on this, we need to include their national security advisers so that the message actually does get to the president or to his staff. excuse me. next, the security council status meetings, an annual exercise where the u.s., our secretary of defense and their national minister of defense against together and provides advice to the commands to work on security matters. that is a pretty powerful matter to north -- statement to north korea and demonstrate publicly u.s. resolve to stand by its ally. we could reinforce this particular meeting, for a

particularly with statementst about how important they see this. building it up in the public eye would make a great contribution to our deterrent posture. the general talked about there is not enough money coming out of the national assembly to improve their capabilities. that is absolutely the case. ownh korea's needs their command and control system that enables them to respond appropriately and quickly to events as they evolve along the dmz and along the nll. right now they do not do a very good job of that. 27 officers were relieved, based

on a non-military inspection of the military. a good case, a good example of this was their cno was relieved, and he had only been sitting in that position for two weeks when the ship incident toook place. but 27 lead officers were relieved. think about that happening in our structure. there'd be an absence of experience and that is a real problem. but part of the problem was there was not a response of command and control systems that conform to the senior leaders there and a timely manner. it took an hour for the minister of defense to find out about it. he was on a train going south to give a speech. seoul, that system is not very

well developed -- so, that system is not very well developed. there was an article, there was a development that sounded pretty promising. the president of south korea appointed a 14-member panel to look into how to improve their ability to deter provocations. the panel said, we need to make plans for counterfire. we need to be able to hit the north koreans where it hurts on a moment's notice. this is not necessarily a shoots at "b" and "b" shoots at "a." and those recommendations. whether that will happen or not, who knows? without the cfour-1, it is

unlikely there will do anything until they put money towards that capability. the korean side, think of this of the future in terms of the strategic alliance in 2015, until they can respond constantly on their own with the system that enables a to shoot at b and b to shoot at a, until they can do something like that, then they will have problems in that area. telling the boley he can no longer take your lunch money is imperative. --telling the bully he can no longer take your lunch money is imperative. thank you for this opportunity. [applause] >> as we continue to discuss the

north korean political challenges in military strategy on the peninsula, you cannot do it in a vacuum. just one small thread of this -- i am reminded that the un flag flies in japan and several locations, where there are bases that support it. we are spending a good bit of time on our side discussing the withdrawal of our bases from japan. i don't recall ever hearing connecting those dots. so as we talk about the strategy and the politics involved on the peninsula, you cannot totally exclude the politics of the rest of the western pacific. and i appreciate robert

helping us focus in on some of north korea's strategy. if you look back over 60 years, it does not seem to have change. he has a steady agenda, and he continues to take our lunch money. it would be somehow helpful if we could get out in front of that somehow. and i think that is extremely difficult to do. we will have the next paper delivered. he has 20 minutes to deal with 32 pages. >> thank you. this is my great pleasure to be invited to this wonderful and to share you reduce some of the ideas about changing security environment -- to share with you some of the ideas about changing security environment. as i said, my paper is alolong.

i think a good idea is changing security environment. in terms of the alliance, i think we have gone through several changes in the past 60 years, and throughout this experience, i think we have grown more mature and continue to fill a strong partnership, and of course, we face some very important challenges as well. in this year of transformation and change, especially at the end of the cold war, i want to emphasize there are unchanging

realities, especially in terms of security in south korea, which have been largely ignored today, as the general said, but very significant in terms of defense. one, korean peninsula is still at war. we're at war with north korea and china and the united states and south korea on the other hand. we have a constitutional struggle between it parliamentarianism of south korea and communism -- hybrid communism of north korea appea. third, north korea's military threat has not been weakened as many experts have said.

especially, we have to take account of the threats -- [unintelligible] i think, also, the rivalry between north korea and south korea appears when we absorb this tradition -- the trend -- when we experience the power transition between kim jong il and his son. despite the world wide tendency to change, a left mentality of it is notis over -- over on the korean peninsula, at least. overview of china.

let me focus on the u.s. response. from the beginning, i think there are many different issues about president obama and defense policy, as far as the peninsula is concerned, the foreign policy is quite good. the korean people are very satisfied with the obama administration. at the same time, the obama administration, [unintelligible] they toughen their diplomacy, which i might describe as a prudent approach to north reappearkorea.

this recent perception was demonstrated in the strong and swift reaction to the china incident. the u.s. government joined the rescue operations and doing investigations, and also conducting maneuvers based on the joint investigation. once this a strong support of the u.s. administration, this strong alliance developed, most of all, -- this is the largest exercise conducted around the korean peninsula held in late july. i might say that this is a reincarnation of the team

spirit exercise held between 1976 and 1993. this was an effective deterrent to north korean leader's trishi. and it is well known that the north korean forces were fully -- while we were conducting those exercises during those days. one side effect of this initiative was china's reaction. when we conducted the military exercise in the wake of the we facedsinking, china's outburst of frustration. china's reaction was unusually harsh. i think -- [unintelligible]

-- china, and high ranking government officials, expressed their strong objection to the exercise. the foreign ministry spokesman said on july 15, "we oppose any foreign military exercise in the coastalea and china's waters, undermines ing china's national-security interests." this was emphasized by high ranking military officials as well, the secretary general was

one. he said several reasons why they need to oppose this a joint exercise. one of the korean newspapers, the professor of china's national defence university said that the true purpose is to intimidate china. that is the chinese interpretation of the exercise. in response, this fierce chinese opposition, [unintelligible] and they prevented "the george

washington" from entering the sea. [unintelligible] it was the fourth joint exercise that the chinese government raised strong opposition in public and we retreated. one day, china may take opposition to the new u.s. space which is under construction -- and new u.s. and base which is under construction.

this was to the south of seoul. uilt, tois base is bil include air, naval and sea forces, if it follows, the general in china -- china might a threat.ive the base as the gateway to china's textile region -- i think to move to this area opened the gate of china's climb in the future of u.s. presence bethe communipeninsula might

harmed it to their security, and the capabilities of the joint u.s.-korea and military alliance might be constrained. this could be a disruption in the alliance and our joint exercises. we need to be aware of china and its government for further interference. [unintelligible] before i move on to what we can do for the future, let me

briefly give you some lessons we learned, at least that south koreans learned from negotiating the nuclear problem. there are truly important lessons that we can learn. one is that if the u.s. secures a commitment to south korea -- is that has been undermined, even in an indirect way -- during the 20 years of negotiations, we had many different frameworks, bilateral, four party and six party. in every negotiation, the united states promised to provide security guarantees to the

korean government. that might undermine the u.s. commitment to south korean security. on the other hand, american politicians -- for example, president clinton, the northwest h.u. program that is under way. actually at a later stage of his presidency, he accelerated his plans to improve relations with north korea and sent to the secretary of state madeleine albright on a diplomatic trip, without mentioning any programs.

in case of bush administration. , in 2006, president bush made a fundamental change in his north korea policy. he gave up the cgid and a bilateral negotiation with north korea and he reached a deal in 2007. he deleted north korea from the list of terrorist nations, in anticipation of negotiations.

today, i want to propose some measures for the strengthening of the alliance. [unintelligible] i think this situation is creating uncertainty and instability, not only in the context of north and south korean relations, but in the region. at this juncture, any change in the defense culture should be proceeded with maximum caution -- preceded with maximum

caution. number one, we have to respect and commit to each other's committment. two, we need to strengthen the region and we need to formulate a strategy to achieve a long- term strategy, not only in korea, but the north -- the rest of the region. third, i want to emphasize the need to protect the armistice and the united nations command. i am concerned that there is a tendency to -- this armistice agreement. that is what north korea has insisted for several decades. one fundamental principle this

measures is diplomatic engagement cannot be a right path in dealing with north korea. to change north korea through engagement or containment or whatever, i think and what is needed is clear understanding of the history and specific meaning -- a reading, an astute reading of the north korean state. particularly, engagement in sympathetic views over north korea or wishful thinking is worse than no engagement and much worse than principled engagement with clear minded strategies. the first matter is respect. each country, including united

states and south korea, we have our own national interests, our national objectives to meet those national interests, and also of foreign interests and objectives. so every country has its national commitment. and south korea and the u.s. has to respect each other and commit ourselves to each other's national commitment. number two is we need to move beyond just old perceptions, stereotypes and attitudes and mindsets. we have long-term perspectives and needed awareness of the changing security status in east asia, especially in northeast asia, including china.

we just started this a turnijou. but what is needed know is we need to expand this joint meeting. . for example, i think on the future of the korean peninsula, the two presidents, unification must be led by south korea, based in democracy, and the push for unified korea must be said inet in -- including the nuclear umbrella for creating a future. lastly, let me focus on the arms agreement.

this january 11, the north korean foreign ministry proposed to conclude a peace treaty with the u.s. before resolving the nuclear problem. this is just the latest version of north korea's proposal to have to deal, and reaching a new peace treaty with the u.s. if the north korean leadership has devoted two generations to realize their policy of national revolution and unification by force, as bob said, to the north koreans, because of that, it symbolizes their determined policy and it is an obstacle to the ultimate unification. that is why preparing for this

armistead -- arms agreement is the key. >> your time is up. [laughter] >> you have a couple more minutes. >> to achieve this aim, north korea used his two-pronged strategy -- military provocation and on the other peace talks. first, the military provocation. stay to the northern limit line, to achieve their strategic end. from 1999, they had four -- by north korea, and the most recent south korean ship sinking is the

latest to create debate about this armistice agreement. then north korea proposed to sign a peace treaty with washington with some involvement of china, the united nations, and sometimes south korea. but there is a tendency that initially, the united states was reluctant to think about this idea about having a peace treaty with north korea. as time goes, especially in conjunction with this crisis of north korea, the governments began to listen to north korea and begin to think that this white -- might not be a bad withto have a deal north korea. i am personally little bit worried about such tendencies. what about the korean case?

traditionally, korean governments from the beginning were reluctant to accept a north korean proposals of negotiating a peace treaty. we thought this was a way for them to marginalize south korea and deal with the united states. however, during the past governments in south korea, they took a different approach. these progressive administrations took a different approach. with the idea of dismantling the framework and establishing a new peace structure --

[inaudible] -- efforts under this campaign, and the armistice agreement was a key element. the current administration -- but they even seem willing to include it. let me conclude.

if would be harmful to regional stability in northeast asia. most of my concern is that it will create the wrong impression, as the armistice agreement is responsible for north korea's nuclear program. we need to avoid these mistakes. thank you. [applause] >> talking about on changing realities on the peninsula, if you can see is paper, he shortened it in skipped past talking about some reactions from north and south korea and responses to the sinking of the south korean ship.

it made interesting reading and provided us some good career in perspective. if you get a chance to see his paper -- it provided us some good korean perspective. this morning, i had a cup of coffee in a teamster coffee cup . i did several of those as well as command and control exercises. i think it is incredibly important that those exercises have had a reincarnation. he pointed to the importance of being able to work together, get to know each other, and have a long-term relationship. and that happened when i was the commanding general, and it could only happen in korea if we had those kinds of exercises. in the last team spirit i participated in was the largest set of operational units i ever

had under command and control at any one time. we exercise all the command and control that was then in place. and we had army troops from the u.s. west coast to never came to korea except for that kind of an exercise. and they even parachuted one of the ranger

>> that was the one i used since my first year in junior high, until i got my ph.d. from the united states at college park. my first english teacher did not

know donald up. so i turned it into d-u-c. when i visited vietnam, they read it "dook," not duc. but the problem is the koreans are reading it d-o-u-g. they never see anyone in kirby egg using -- korea using d-o-u- g. so when you go to the library of congress, he will have to look up all three of them to get the full set of my papers. i did not have time to read all

of these papers. we did not have the coordination to blame north korea and praise our government. i am doing my own paper. i do not want to -- bear with me. i was born in 1951, one year after the caribbean war broke out. -- korean war broke out. i am very short, compared to others of my comrades. that is because of the korean war. there was nothing to eat. we had nothing to eat. no supplies. i am sure than my two brothers who were born after the war. i have to blame north korea for that. [laughter] if i was born after the war, i

could be a movie star in hollywood. [laughter] so, i am a born anti-communist. [laughter] so, i do not like war myself. but i have to defend myself. if somebody does not come to an agreement, that is okay. live your life. but if they cross that line, i should have the right to self- defense. that is the point i make in this paper. i do not want to say something bad about north at the minimum, leave me alone -- i do not want to say something bad about north korea, but at the minimum, leave me alone. this is a very expensive paper, you know. they paid a lot of money for this.

and to bruce, who mobilized me come up because if you call, i am ready. when ever you call, i am mobilized. all the generals are saying after the major-general will retire -- i do not know why we would do that. first, he would retire. [laughter] why would he do that? he put my name as a doctor kim, and the first lieutenant as retired. why not? [laughter] i love to take pictures. i am evolving from pictures to videos. i also love to account numbers.

how many are male, female, something like that. and i love to count the top of the rooftops. small animals. we call them [speaking korean] in correa, there are some -- korea there are some buildings. me, i love to make small changes. as i am it small, i love to make small changes. [laughter] i would like to make small changes today. at least three of them. let me start. that you read this very expensive paper.

[laughter] do me a favor. i have 20 minutes -- [unintelligible] [laughter] just stop me right there. they are all here. this year is 2010. in korean history, it is significant. it marks the event that occurred in 1910, 1945, 1950, 1990, and 2000. you know, 1910, japan claimed correa as -- korea as a colony. we used to call it 36 years of occupation.

actually, 1910, august 22, and it was publicly announced august 29. it is less than 35 years. we are two weeks short of 35 years. why then do koreans keep calling it "36 years of occupation"? do you like to be controlled that way? i kept arguing, and they changed it. they changed it into 35 in their very recent publication. from 36 to 35. if you ask any caribbean, they will keep on saying 36 years -- if you ask any korean, they will keep on saying 36 years. help me out here.

correct them. the united states came to correa -- korea. they were barely able to save the southern part of the korean peninsula. many people seem to forget that. all of them would be after soviet occupation. 1950 again, the korean war. this year, we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the korean war. this was all in 1953. then we were at armistice. but, please, allow me. i am going to change it.

we were at war with north korea. they were not a terrorist in that sense. we were at war. that is why i feel -- i take my 35-year-old uniform with me. whenever they call me, i am ready to go. in 1999 the front, you know, -- 1990's, you know, correa and run shot normalize relations. -- korea and russia normalized relations. we are supposed to celebrate this. we have the first meeting between our presidents.

there was some kind of technical problems. you understand that. those are supposed to be held one year apart. one day from that, and of the delegations were ready to go to north korea. but they had to go back home, wait one more day. they had technical problems. we knew what was the technical problem. there was a banking problem. the money that was supposed to be delivered to north rio was not. they said, wait a minute. we cannot allow you to come to the north until we verify that. that was a technical problem. therefore, the year 2010 is the 100th anniversary of the blah, blah, blah. [laughter] we were supposed to have a very good year this year. there are positives.

there are some. they are all gone due to the cheonan incident. i just want to make some points the north korea has been a factor in security from the very start. we seem to forget that we have them at the time. and then, after the third cheonan, meaning the sinking of the cheonan was a turning point in north korean relations in general. also, in handling the cheonan situation, it was embarrassing.

we know that. we should take measures to correct that mistake. but there is discontent about the reports of the commission which concluded that the north is responsible and the evidence is complete. there are still many koreans in korea, and obviously, they have a doubt about it. i think our government should do some more to make it known that that is a fact. there are also statements regarding the cheonan incident. it is not widely circulated. the government has succeeded in

making the public understand the government for all information. i put those reports in our paper to make those reports known to our public. there are 24 experts who support the united states. at the news, when i heard that -- why not russia and china? we could have invited them. it is up to them whether they come or not. but we could have invited them. and then, whether we continue or not -- that is related to this report.

they did not come anyway. and then after the investigation of the incident, there was an address to the nation. it was north korea that attacked the cheonan. there was a united nations security council presentation in july. i think our government administration prefaced -- to add to the united nations sanctioning north korea. and with the presidential statement, north korea said that the un document did not say north korea is responsible. they mentioned it at the time. the responses from the other relevant parties say it has

nothing to do with that. north korea claims, oh, we are not responsible for that. china is taking this side. lee myung-bak said that china was taking this side of the address, that north korea was responsible for that. i will skip the reunification part. after the cheonan incident time of their work missions -- there were measures taken, as the general explained. the reason is, i was ready to take over by 2012, but it was postponed by three years.

in their documents, they made it clear that the delay was requested by south korea, not united states. why not the united states? meaning, south korea and our military and our government was not ready for that. we could change that arrangement. that was my thought. and then, there is of foreign minister, the defense minister, and the north koreans signed that they would continue with the policies. and the ministry of service is to be reviewed. it has been reviewed over 18 months, and it should be resumed to at least three years.

at least our future recruits would like that. then, what is next? >> you have time. >> really? ok. thank you very much. china could be a stronger supporter for the security and unification, but at the same time, they could be a very terrible stumbling block for unification and security of the same time. when i was talking to chinese scholars and officials, they were not convinced by the report, again, and they were relying on their own source of information. if we want to have a better, more positive relationship with china, i think our government

should have more aggressive, more active public policy toward the chinese. so i was proposing that. why not this year commemorate the anniversary of the korean war, and also china's passage into the caribbean more? why don't we show that -- china fell passage into the china's passage into the korean war? why don't we show that? i think we need to contain the threat from north korea. there was one sculler i quoted from. he said that we need to contain north korea in some sense.

thomas we cannot or we are not doing anything to change come up the bottom line is we should have some kind of containing mechanism from the north korean threat to the south. so, i was talking about the view of the relationship between the south and the north. how do you call the relationship between north and south korea up until now? we call that a special relationship. meaning, we are supposed to be reunited. therefore, only since 1991.

but the countries with those special relationships are not supposed to attack militarily. i think we need to change the special relationship into a normal relationship, like the korean relationship with china, but japan. -- with japan. ok. and then, we should strengthen our public awareness of the threat from north korea. and the fourth one was, i think it is time we need to introduce -- system into north korea. we cannot have one here. but you saw. it was a fishing boat who led

discovered the parts for that investigation. then 1991, correa korea introduced a new system. it is time to introduce an national system in korea. they have about one and the one in the united states. i understood what they did. but korea in -- but in korea, it is the most active reserves. they pop up somewhere. wearing a red. i love that. they are the ones facing general macarthur in asia. why not give them a chance to serve the nation?

in concluding, there are several points i made, but the one -- there were 46 sailors lost in the cheonan incident. they should be the last casualties'. making a memorial could help the korean people remember march 26, 2010. as united states made a memorial in 1976. korea should make a memorial not to forget the cheonan incident. i had to change the number of u.s. casualties korea at then war memorial. -- the number of u.s. casualties

at the korean war memorial. i took the picture of the memorial and i compared it with the biggest picture i took at the korean war memorial. 21,000 poor souls. where are they? not long ago, president obama signed a bill about the korean war. the numbers of the korean war memorial in korea should be changed. i am willing to make the change. it is not that expensive to do that.

before we do that, the government should decide to change. i hope i will make the change before president obama comes korea to -- comes to korea so we can have a small party. [laughter] and i want to be the founder of the korean national guard. my career and more -- am i at of korean war veteran? technically, i hand. -- i am. for me, it was 1950 through 2010. so i am a type of the dispatched. thank you very much.

[applause] >> dr. doug, we commend you for your humor. >> james? >> no. i certainly enjoy my visits. he pointed to us some caribbean history korea -- n history, some things to think about -- korean history, some things to think about. china continues to be a mainstay in this discussion. this alliance containing north korea is a topic which, if you remember the last time we did this, we spent a good deal of time talking about how the beatification would occur -- reunification would occur.

one of the solutions was a huge, a simple bell that would be struck every day. i have a replica of that bell in my study every day -- in my study. i strike it every day. i remember all the discussions we had, in this relationship you talk about, and transgressing into a normal relationship, is one that perhaps the next generation is going to have to deal with. i would say to you, a normal relationship might be better. we have a special relationship with great britain. on several occasions, we fought

them and they fought us and we fought together. it and we do not always agree, but perhaps the special relationship, you can have that kind of special relationship. it is still a good one. you have been provocative and asked us to think about how that relationship changes. i think it is going to be mostly of the koreans change the relationship. i am not sure the u.s. can change your relationship with north korea from special to normal. that is something to think about. we wish you luck with the caribbean national guard. korea -- korean national guard. it will make our mission without the use of that reserve force. we wish you success in having a

korean national guard. they have to be trained very operationally. you recall what happened in the first days of the korean war. the people who responded to fight that war for you were mostly from the reserve. they did not do well those first few days. you love got to work on that. good luck with the korean national guard. good work on your paper. i commend it to each of you. that's it go forward with discussion of each of the papers. -- let's go forward with discussion of each of the papers. we will finish on time, get out of here on time. we will be late for lunch. >> thank you very much.

my name is john from the u.s. institute of peace. he mentioned that some of the aspects of the reunification and focused on the course of strategy and diplomacy. the defection of -- the definition of diplomacy -- if we look at statistics, they are quite shocking. by 2003, north korea had conducted 1439 major provocations against south korea, primarily, but also against u.s. personnel. second point, north korea plant and/or attempted to assassinate the south korean president in several years. between 1960 and 2007, north korea conducted over 1000 infiltrations'.

the last point, 1973 to 2007, was a short interval where it north koreans crossed the limit line thousands of times. he lays this out as the single greatest in a letter of north korean compelling strategy in an attempt to use it proximity in its military strategy dealing with the south. as much as we focus on the tyranny of proximity and look at the korean border, we also look north, further afield. if we look at the chinese, -- chinese/north korean border, that is a question of proximity. it is a wake-up call. it lets us lookit how all these are factoring into a rapidly- evolving situation. i would argue that speaking

about the cheonan was about north korea. but the question about the u.s.-south korea and naval exercises is very much about china. these papers raise a lot of important questions. with this opportunity to use the cheonan incident to look closely at chinese behavior, we look at two groups. there is the pla. they look at this as something of a guest. it for them, perception is reality. i think they have been using perception to paint a picture of clear and present danger of this expansion of the coverage of the u.s. alliance. with this, they have the opportunity to accelerate programs. with that, i think we will see a very active sterilization of

their defense and industrial sectors. were now in this category this is a large reality of what we're dealing with, in addition to dealing with north korea. the second group, and in china, i would argue is the game changer. that is the communist party of china, specifically the international department. very quickly, i want to address this. as we look at china, as a look at cheonan, this is the panda in the room. it is important to directly access this factor. there are three questions. one is, what is china doing? the second is, why? the third is, how is it doing this? the first -- china has placed a lot of emphasis on maintaining

its strength in north korea appear this is been reiterated -- in north korea. this has been reiterated time and again. they're enhancing the workers' party of korea. it is a different situation, but in terms of the skills and capacity-building they're trying to foster in north korea, there are certain similarities to a post-complex civilization tab of activity, where you build up the local actors and players. this is not something new. to go back into history -- i would argue that this started in 1992, when the wheels were set in motion. it was the economy -- a period where they established a thematic relations. -- a diplomatic relations. we see a lost decade in regard to party relations.

there is a state-ending calamity in the famine in the late-1990's, where this culminates in october, 2005. at that time, there was a celebration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the workers party. we saw the vice premier bring in her delegation -- a commerce minister -- and we saw the beginnings of the sign of the day of -- decay of agreements. they were landmark agreements. fast-forward to last year and premier wen jiabao's visit. senior chinese official visiting -- a senior chinese official visiting on an important anniversary. who was in the delegation? it is quite amazing. if you look at the picture, it is a who's who of chinese leadership with senior

military, senior party officials and so forth, and the chief of the national development and reform commission and the commerce minister. they were meeting with their north korean counterparts. he leaves very abruptly. my hunch is the meeting between kim jong-il and wen jiabao was a continuation of unfinished business from the main visit. this leads to the question of why china is doing this year there are three reasons. one is to buy latterly stabilize north korea. -- bilaterally stabilize north korea. how do you deal with this had a? the second is a multilateral engagement of north korea by the six-party talks. the denuclearization of north korea it is the stated goal. from the beijing perspective is

to manage the other parties in the six-party talks, especially the united states and south korea. we often overlook the third point because it does not fit the building of a strategic issue. the very localized, economic development of the three chinese provinces bordering north korea -- the reality is that those three chinese provinces are among the poorest in the country, which are relying on the energy resources of north korea. there is an important local dynamic that feeds into the broader chinese party of closing the gap between the rich and the board as the works towards -- the poor as they work towards this. the question of how highlights more of this important development that has been going on for awhile and has been accelerating under the surface.

the growing interactions with the communist party and the workers party, specifically the international department. when the previous chinese ambassador fishes timing pyongyang and rotated back to beijing -- finished his time in pyongyang and retreated back to beijing, he was the last to do so. his replacement is the vice minister in the communist party. it reinforces the notion of the deepening and unique relationship between the two parties, specifically the international department. this leads to the notion of how china is going about this in an operational sense. it is a very straightforward economic development corp. and -- cooperation and utilization of an 1874 loophole. countries member states are not prohibited from conducting engaging in economic development and humanitarian activities.

the chinese go to great pains to emphasize that these interactions fall into this category of economic development. in obligations while this -- the party-to-party relationship is far ahead of where the u.s. and north korea are with the stalemate. nothing is more visible than of former president who was left, without having that kim jong il -- met kim jong-il. the influence of the parties is growing in this succession. this leads to a lot of questions as to what, specifically, is happening in the transaction, because there is a lot of deal making going back and forth. going back to then notion of the cheonan in public -- cheonan provocations. they are not doing this piecemeal. they have gone all in pure the north korean party is in a

position of reciprocating -- all in. the north korean party is in a position of for submitting. what we know as we have heard from the papers is that china did not condemn north korea. north korea, more or less, got off scot-free. john ensign -- china and russia -- they were reluctant to condemn the actor, but they condemned the action. we see china playing a very unique role. i would argue, in one sense, they're setting in reinforcing president -- precedent. they want to deal with this party-to-party and do capabilities enhancement going forward. thank you. [applause]

>> this has changed from what i got earlier. >> i am scott snyder from the asia foundation. my assignment is to talk about professor -- the professor's paper. is is challenging for me because he gave a thought provoking and the very rich paper, with a lot in it. i will try the focus on four main areas that i think are particularly interesting. the first is really about the alliance. the professor gave what i would call a classic korean realist assessment of factors related to continuity and change. he focused on the changing strategic environment in which the alliance has operated and he focused on changing

resources internal to alliance capabilities. he also kept his eye on the ball as it relates to the continuity of the north korean threat. what i would like to ask him to comment on is -- at the end of the paper he talks about the joint vision statements from june, 2009 -- which i agree is a very important document. that document expand both the functional and geographic scopeof the alliance at the same time that the north korean threat is still there. my own view is that, at this particular moment, when the u.s.-korea alliance is riding high, we need to do what began to consolidate -- do what we can to consolidate that process.

the question i want ask is, what do you think about the values and interest rationale for the alliance that have been provided in the joint vision statement? in his paper, he emphasized the threat-based russia now. i want to know what he thinks about the bayous and interest -- values and interest rationale. another theme of the panel has been related to china's rise and implications for the alliance precursor we are paying special attention -- for the alliance. we just had a conference about this earlier this month. with the cheonan issue, china has emerged as an issue for coordination in the alliance

context for the first time. i'm sure and will not be for the lost time. it raises a number of very township and interesting issues in terms of the extent to which -- a very challenging and interesting issues in terms of the extent to which they should coordinate as it relates to north korea-related and maritime-security related issues connected to china. another aspect of the cheonan issue was that it was revelatory as to the extent to which the u.s. and south korea are talking past each other with china on some key issues. president obama used the phrase "willful blindness" to describe the chinese approach to dealing with the facts of the cheonan

incident. it is clear that the u.s.-china tensions are not good for south korean interests as it relates to the future in terms of prospects for dealing with north korea. the question i want to ask the professor is related to the impacts on the china-south korea relationship of the cheonan incident. how lasting is the impact of the cheonan? how serious is the impact? a third issue that he spent a lot of time talking about is the cheonan incident itself. as we've seen this unfold, we have noticed a couple of interesting aspects. it is moved through different phases -- has moved through some different phases which we have

handled well at times and poorly at others. where south korea took the lead, it was handled very well. the u.n. security council phase -- i like to call the "punishment phase." my own view is that the statement that came out of the un security council was not fully satisfactory and it put us behind the curve in terms of feeling that we achieve the objective of holding north korea accountable related to the cheonan incident. the third phase is what i would call the penalty phase and this is all about the exercises. here is where i think something very interesting happened.

is transmitted from a korean -- it transmitted from a korean issue into a united states- china issue. it is an interesting and complicated development. the fourth phase -- a fourth phase and i do not know if there will be additional ones beyond what i am focused on -- the question of exit strategy. i am just interested to hear his view about whether we -- what are the circumstances under which we can say we are entering the fourth phase? what are the conditions and requirements? the last. i want to focus on related to his paper is really -- the last area that i want to focus on related to his paper is really focusing on this issue of returns. clearly there is a perceived

failure of deterrence in relation to the cheonan incident. i want to focus on strategies for north korean transformation. in his presentation, the doctor talked about the need to -- between washington and seoul to agree on the importance of unification, led by south korea as an objective. i think that is the joint mission statement -- is in the joint vision statement. the areas where we still have potential space between us are related to needs and costs. that is, in the context of pursuing that set of objectives. in my view, it really comes down to the same set of issues we have been dealing with for some time.

how do we achieve regime transformation in north korea? i do not have the answers, but it seems to me one possibility is internally leveraging change. to a certain extent, one could argue that, in fact, the sunshine policy was supposed to be about that. in my view, the concept was find that the implementation was faulty. externally-led regime change is another option, but that carries with it high costs potentially, in terms of conflict. we have a question of what role china is going to play as a correlates to the seven issues -- as it relates to that set of issues. one possibility is that they could pursue this by itself. john pointed to that as a possibility. china could do it in

cooperation with us. that seems less likely. the issue is related to north korea's isolation as a primary source of its immunity to u.s. and south korea's countermeasures. our current approach -- the sanctions and exercises -- still does not give us any way of leveraging north korea and dependency -- north korean dependency. i want to point to that as a potential issue of linkage. another issue i will fly and briefly is the issue of the armistice and a peace treaty -- flag briefly is the issue of the armistice and the peace treaty. originally, north and south korea negotiated a basic agreement, in 1992, and the reality of the confrontation on

the peninsula, especially conventionally, is that it is going to involve progress between the north and south in terms of achieving real, conventional drawdowns. it seems that is the place -- the enabling condition that has to exist for anything else to move forward on the set of issues. there is another issue in view of staff rok -- u.s. -- are ok -- in the u.s.-rok relationship. the processes have to be done in tandem. that is going to be a process that will reinforce the u.s.- rok cooperation. >> thank you. let me lay out a reminder of our time to go and how we will proceed.

i will ask nicole, representing the caribbean economic institute, would give us an assessment of the last paper -- the korean economic institute, would give us an assessment of the last paper. then i will ask the professor if he would like to respond to those questions raised by scott. we will take that to the q&a on the floor. if you of questions you want ask, we will conclude by 11:15 and get you on your way to lunch. >> thank you. clearly, dr. bruce bechtol does not believe in ladies first. [laughter] i am from the caribbean economic institute. this may come as a surprise to you, but i am not from south korea. audienceng around the and going to say that most of

you are also not from south korea appeared one of the reasons i think that dr. kim's paper is so important is because we often did not take the time to look of the korean peninsula and what south korea is going through on its own. you cannot take anything in a bubble or disregard china or the u.s.-rok alliance, but the south has its own issues to deal with with the north. dr. kim's paper is so important to think about. forgive me, but south korean politics, especially south korean public sentiment, is rather baffling. it is difficult to understand from this small town, american perspective of what is going on.

i'm grateful to dr. kim for addressing some of these things. when we saw the lee myung-bak administration take over south korea and we saw a significant change, a complete reversal -- not a reversal, but a definitely a different direction on how south korea was going to handle the north and what the policy was going to be, it was stated that south korea was done giving to north korea without getting any progress in return. lee myung-bak was going to take a firm stance in the new policy was to be very different. it was easy to get my head around. lee myung-bak was elected with the greatest majority of a president in korea get. -- yet. what was difficult understand was the domestic response in south korea to that new position toward north korea.

dr. kim walked me through that in his paper. i encourage you to read it. when lee myung-bak's "new policy" came out, the public was not up to speed. it took some time to figure it out, but the north koreans did not. they heard the swift change and made their own reactions. they ratcheted up tension with the south. we have seen a significant decline in relations ever since, instigated by the north. what dr. kim argues is that they felt worse relations. all they perceived or all they see is that we have gotten worse relations with north korea. i also found it really interesting that, leading up to 2010, which is so important as the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the korean war,

there was domestic sentiment that there should be reconciliation efforts or expectation, even, in south korea that we would see some handshakes, maybe the passage of a bouquet of flowers, or some symbolic or ceremonial reconciliation gesture between the two koreas. that expectation has not been met as things have gotten worse. then the cheonan issue happens. north korea torpedoes the south korean ship. 46 sailors died, but the intention was for 104. in south korea, that -- she argues that is not necessarily look at. the lee myung-bak administration, he argues, did an embarrassing job of being

cleared and keeping the public up to speed -- of being clear and keeping the public up to speed in communicating with the public. we saw significant distrust of what the administration was doing after and because of the cheonan incident. to add to what he says in his paper, there was a recent sentiment in north korea -- south korea -- there was a recent survey of sentiment in south korea in may and june with a healthy sample size of over 1000 people. because local elections were happening in south korea soon after the cheonan incident, there were a lot of accusations that what the administration was doing about north korea and

the incident had everything to do with politics, with elections coming up, etc. the survey results say that 61% of south koreans believe how the administration was handling north korea after the cheonan incident was because of elections. what i found really interesting and surprising is the administration that said they had to be firm and not play with somebody who was willing to attack -- they did not benefit politically when the elections came about. the incident appears not to have affected the election at all and south korea. in the service, more than 70% of those surveyed said that it did not affect their vote at all. what was even more baffling from my perspective was, after a multinational investigation comes out implicating north korea of 100% without any doubt, there was a lot of

disbelief and south korea that that was true. even after the report comes out, there is disbelief. it is not the majority go a lot was who -- majority, but why is it there? there is a difference in each in south korea -- in an age over south korea. most of those over 60 trusted the results. only 26% of people under the age of 30 believe the report of the investigation. what is going on in south korea it is not our experience here with north korea. it is something to look at. we also understand that north

korea's nuclear weapons program, their willingness to torpedo a south korean ship, makes it necessary for the south korean administration to do something about it. having preconditions and a necessary for the lee myung-bak administration to demand resolution -- to demand an apology, demand something from north korea condi incident before moving forward makes sense to us -- north korea incident before moving forward makes sense to us. the concept of denuclearization before giving the economic rewards, before moving toward -- that makes sense. what i did under shed is how it will be possible -- would i do not understand is how it will be possible when the majority of south koreans do not seem to be in favor of that policy.

in fact, it looks like -- i have a number here somewhere. of those surveyed, only 35% believe the for response is the right response with north korea. third -- 63% would prefer reconciliation and cooperation efforts immediately. dr. kim's paper highlights the survey. he mentioned a few changes and i think they're really interesting. part of his paper talks about what this rok administration has done. i would ask how this relates to the defense posture of north korea before you found it. he mentions that maybe some

other reason that south koreans did not believe the report may have something to do with china and the desire for good relations with china and the fact that china did not support the investigation result. he suggests bouldering and -- bolstering and improving rok- china relations, which is interesting. i know we make a joke of it, but imagine our reconciliation ceremony -- it happens all over the world, especially 60 years after the war has hopefully ended -- imagine chinese-korean war vets participating in something in seoul. i do not know how possible that is, but imagine that and what kind of message that would send to north korea.

he also talks about, because of how embarrassing it has been, lee myung-bak's administration possibility to keep the public aware or -- administration's ability to keep the public aware in the understanding of what it is doing and why it is doing. -- the advocates for public -- he advocates for better public awareness of south korea-north korea policy. he argues that the general population of south korea it is not interested in general security policy. there are more interesting and tantalizing newsworthy topics. they have taken clear efforts to bring them along. short of propaganda, i completely agree with that statement. i thought it would be interesting to see an arizona- like memorial made out of the cheonan, highlighting the fact that there were other injured persons who were fortunate to

be saved, but were also attacked. finally, dr. kim's push for containment makes sense to me if the administration in south korea's policy involves preconditions. north korea has to make the first move and qualified its -- qualifiy as progress before x-y- z. that is very consistent with south korea's policy. in the meantime, we need to contain the threat. we need to prevent this from happening again, and prevent any attacks from north korea happening. my question -- and that makes sense to me.

however, if 66% of south koreans are not in favor of only containment and staying strong, i wonder if you have any other -- would containment be complemented with any other effort within south korea? one thing i would like to put out there -- you mentioned the tax. the south korean administration official meant to end the idea of invalid -- mentioned to the idea of the implementation of a tax to help fund eventual unification. it is going to be expensive. it is not going to go smoothly in most people's opinions. maybe south korea should start preparing for it. you mentioned that the population was not all necessarily on board with this.

it has been controversial. it has been discussed. i would like to hear your perception of that unification tax or south korea taking a containment and bolstering their ability to contain north korea while, on the other side, thinking more proactively about bringing about unification. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we appreciate you discussing these papers. in the time remaining, let's ask the doctor to respond briefly to the questions. then, let's open it to the floor for questions. >> thank you, scott, for probing questions.

-- for your thought-provoking questions. i think the dilemma facing the chinese [unintelligible] we have a very strong economic interest to china. china's no. 1 trade partners are japan and the united states. the [unintelligible] surpassing the united states. there were the first country with a study of this, also surpassing united states. on the other side, we have a wake-up call from china. there was an attempt by the chinese government to try to rewrite the history. they tried to put this dynasty and part of chinese culture into its own identity.

it was significant to the caribbean people. -- korean people. at the moment, [unintelligible] the korean people and the government think we are facing a dilemma. is in our interest to minimize -- it is in our interest to minimize this. i do not know how to deal with this dilemma. i think there is a consensus that when we looked into china- rok relations, i think there are some assumptions. how about transforming the north korean regime?

this relates to a question about the korean public's view about the government's very aggressive and depressive approach to north korea. in korean society, there is a view emerging that we need to distinguished leadership -- and distinguished the leadership versus the people. at the same time, many people demand that the korean government provide assistance to the ordinary people. when i go out in towns and give public lectures to the korean people, they're concerned about the programs, the nuclear threat. this perception is rising, especially after the incident. but the same time, this

proportion of assistance [unintelligible] one reason why this negative polling data is that there is no communication assistance in north korea. do you provide a certain amount of money? we have to take a two-pronged approach, continuing with the present sanctions and opening a channel for assistance and dialogue with the north korean people. the korean people want to put

pressure on north korea, but they want to minimize the pressure's influence on the north korean people. i think that is a good sign for the unification process. mind, northern people's that is necessary for success. >> thank you. can you answer the questions that she posed to you? then we will go to the floor. >> she read my paper better than i did, so that is a very good sign. thank you very much. [laughter] i have five questions out of the excellent discussion. with the korean national guard, they still have a draft system.

every boy has to go to the army. my friends and i go mountain climbing together. we go scuba diving together. we can make many special ops out of those reserves. i need them. i'm going to recruit them and make our national guard inc. that is the start. if i can get government funding, i can train them and make the finest fighting motion injuries. -- machine in korea. that is my goal. the second question about china -- chinese veterans participating in the korean war -- i think it is an excellent idea. many of them are coming to

korea as tourists. this time, we want to recognize that and show them the war memorial and give them a chance to think about what would happen if there was another war in korea. who should stop it? you do not come across again. the soviet air force -- i published a book in 2006 about the soviet forces in the korean war. there are three provisions of the soviet powers who participated in the korean war. few people know that. it is a good time to invite soviet pilots to korea to show them. at the time, they did not have a chance to see the ground.

they were always fighting above the clouds. the third one is containment of the north koreans. i'm not against the dialogue and operation with the koreans. -- and cooperation with the koreans. in 2004, the u.s. passed into law the division between the north korean leadership and the people. people-to-people contact -- i love that. i love to talk to them, help them out, give them aid i during natural disasters, but dealing with the leadership is different. containing the threat for north korea -- for the people-to- people contact, i think that should be widened, encourage, and we should invite someone who has been very favorable to

the north koreans and use them to have more contacts and more visits to north korea. two more questions. the unification tax -- nobody likes to pay tax. they should be ready there'll come a time when you pay a lot of money at the same time, at 1 point. be prepared for that moment. to do that, we should be able to get ready for the moment. we have so-called interim korean cooperation funds. they're not in use yet appeared -- in use yet. in germany, they got the money after the reunification. after the reunification.