doesn't get his way. a coalition of immigration advocacy groups sent a letter to congressional democrats yesterday, asking them to [indiscernible] the issue before the november elections. the president has said in the absence of congressional action, he would have to shift resources. here is a look at our prime time lineup for next week on the c-span networks. each night starting at eight :00 eastern on c-span. monday, a debate on genetically modified food. tuesday, issue spotlight on general motors safety recall. wednesday, highlights from this year's new york ideas form. thursday, we will look at the issue of climate change. friday night, we will visit important sites in the history of the civil rights movement. monday on c-span2, booktv in time -- prime time. tuesday night at 8:00,

afterwards. wednesday, how new technology will fundamentally change everyday life. thursday night, a discussion about the future of politics with robert ehrlich. 8:00 p.m. eastern, in-depth with writer and religious scholar. on american history tv on c-span3, an entire week on the civil war. monday, a look at the overland campaign in virginia. tuesday, the war's only battle in washington, d.c. the 150thnight, anniversary of the union defeat at the battle of the crater. thursday, the capture of atlanta and general sherman's march to the sea. friday, a look at hollywood's portrayal of slavery. find our television schedule one week in advance at www.c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at the number on your screen, or e-mail us.

the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. next, a look at the relationship between south korea and japan. it was an event hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. it includes a former south korean national, who talked about the u.s. role in facilitating effective dialogue between the nations. this is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon. i'm honored to be invited to the the center of the american foreign-policy in security analysis, and one of the leading intellectual center for the global affairs. i'm very grateful to my good

friend and leading thinker, philosopher, strategist, and good citizen of the united states, good friend of korea, to organize this wonderful event. i see many dignitaries and distinguished guests from the u.s. and korea, former chairman ,f the joint chiefs of staff generaltary, the major and stanley ross, good friends of the korean republic, and good friend of korea-u.s. alliance. and many other guests. i'm not trying to take too much but i will discuss some issues that i think is very for us, for u.s., and for japan in order to promote peace and stability in asia and

thereby contributing to the global peace. the relationship between three countries, korea, u.s. and japan, has been characterized by cooperation and sometimes conflict. in terms of the triangle, korea has fta with the united states well in place. implement theto fta so we can have synergy from both sides. then is now member of tonspacific partnership create a multilateral free trade network in the asia-pacific area .

japan, we areand major trade partners. still we have to accomplish .ilateral fta in the meantime, korea is concentrating on a bilateral fta with china. it is a democratic triangle, democracy,share freedom, and human rights. are the leading democracy in asia. by any standards, we are a full-fledged democracy. that was supported by our strong alliance with the united states, the korea-united states sent its troops to defend our freedom and democracy. after thee of japan,

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

three countries. i would like to start with the relationship with china. all threeat countries, korea, u.s. and japan [indiscernible] china made a phenomenal economic and its power and influence have been increasing in asia. have a verye to cooperative relationship with china, because it is beneficial for us and maybe for china, too, to have a productive economic partnership. japan, the u.s. -- sorry, u.s. and china, the relationship is perhaps the most important relationship in our global affairs.

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

the venue where this impact of change in the u.s.-china relationship is most acutely felt in the korean peninsula, from a korean viewpoint, cooperative u.s.-china partnership certainly contributes to the peace and prosperity of the korean peninsula and also for the inter-korean relationship and eventually towards korean unification. [indiscernible] ,as been maintaining very close solid, robust korea-u.s. timence while at the same developing a harmonious relationship with china, alliance with the united states, and harmonious partnership with china are not two contradictory things.

countries could become a cooperative and beneficial partner for korea's economic growth and korea's free trade, and also for the inter-korean unification. that is our national interest. we recently welcome president xi jinping to korea. he visited the country, came to seoul, met with the president, and they issued a joint statement that the two countries will expand, develop, this strategic partnership, send a firm message to north korea that we oppose the development of nuclear weapons by north korea.

they also agreed to finish the korea-china fta, hopefully before the end of this year. all of this partnership and cooperation is continuing at the moment. but there is an important part of our relationship with china. china has proposed to the united states the new style of great power relationship in the california sunny lands. i would like to interpret this proposal as something benign, something positive, said the constructive. but also at the same time, we have to make sure that this great power relationship, the new style of great power relationship with the united states, do not exclude the sovereignty and interest of the countries in asia, including korea.

the dialogue in beijing should continue, to closely consult with each other to develop a constructive partnership and to avoid any unnecessary conflict. it is my view that it is not a good idea for the united states to contain china so that china can feel sort of intimidated by the u.s. policy, nor is it desirable that china try to exclude the united states from asia. the two countries should move towards constructive partnership. next, i want to talk about china, japan relationship. this is the most important regional relationship in asia.

we have seen in the past that china and japan -- we are moving in a different direction for a collision course. china is a continental power in asia. japan is a maritime power with a strong alliance with the united states across the pacific. korea is in between these two powers. we have seen the sino japanese war erupting 120 years ago, and korea was devastated between the two powers colliding against each other. we have experienced the korean war started by north korea, but china sent in forces and made a military intervention during the korean war. japan was not directly involved in the korean war, but japan gave area support to the united states so that they can exercise military operation in south

korea against north korea and china. again, in the korean war, giant china and japan were standing -- china and japan were standing on the other side. chinese has risen. japan is trying to research the national prestige and power. so in the 21st century, we are witnessing another trend of sino japanese rivalry in the region. in politics as i have experienced, rivalry is not always a bad thing. two rivals could end of being in the present, indicates the case of korea. the famous two kims episode. so rivals actually contribute to the development of the other side. if it is a benign rivalry. if it becomes a malign rivalry,

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

proclaimed our own korean and defense identification zone, this is very graphic evidence that we are living to closely to each other. there is a kind of geographical proximity. while it encourages rich cultural and economic partnership in a military and security area, we are living dangerously. we should make every effort to prevent any incidental or accidental clash of competing jurisdictions in this area. and i talk with my friends from a group of 10 countries in southeast asia, and they have another problem of their own which is south china sea issue. they try to explore some sort of a code of conduct in this area

to prevent any unnecessary conflicts or direct clash with china which claim its maritime territorial rights in this region. so in northeast asia, too, i think we should make efforts to find some sort of a modest code of conduct which is acceptable to all the parties concerned. compared to europe, we still do not have multilateral framework. we do not have nato or eu, but i think that crisis creates opportunity. this maritime territorial issue could be a good forum where we can start to think about a multilateral security framework to make sure that this can be maintained.

we have an islands dispute. we have had a very dangerous contact between the two airplanes, china-japan and also a united states airplane coming into the area. it is a kind of a time bomb in northeast asia. we should not wait for this time bomb to explode. we should actually diffuse this time bomb so that we can live peacefully. in that sense, i think it was very fortunate that china and japan began to talk to each other through a high level meeting in myanmar, a regional forum with the chinese foreign minister and japanese foreign minister getting together to sit down and talk about the common issues. it was the first foreign

ministerial meeting after almost two years, and this is the first such meeting after the integration of prime minister abe in his second cabinet. i understand that there was some sort of a preliminary diplomatic activity going on between the two sides, some sort of -- the former prime minister is known to have visited china and met with president xi jinping to propose a high level meeting and see if china can come to the table and talk about the common issue. and i think that this communication between two rifle countries certainly contributes to the peace and stability of the region -- between these two rival countries contributes to please and stability. that is an hour interest. we do not want china and japan running towards a colliding

course. also, it expands our rule for maneuver between china and japan, because you have to deal with the two countries together. finally, this china-japan communication and dialogue would contribute to the regional cooperation amongst korea, china, japan, another triangle in northeast asia. so i think that president obama, the u.s. government, should continue to develop its strategic dialogue with china, on the one hand, and manage alliance with japan, on the other. therefore, exercise and play this role as a strategic balancer between china and japan.

no other country can do it better than the united states. the reason is that we do not want either china or japan to become an expansionist and dominate power in the region. that is exactly korea's interest, and that is exactly a thing of american interest. next, korean-japan relationship -- our relationship is supposed to be very close. we always said japan is the closest neighbor, but right now the relationship is very much strained. geographically, we are in close neighbors, but politically, we live far apart. during the last one and a half years, we have not seen a summit meeting, top level, presidential meeting, between the president and prime minister abe.

and i am concerned that this stalemate and non-dialogue actually beginning to make an impact on the public opinions of both sides. this worries me. i would argue that if this deadlock becomes too much prolonged, then we may pass the point of no return, and it will be difficult to recover our sense of friendship and trust between the two countries. we have recent opinion polls in korea which shows that korean perception of japan is getting worse. at the same time, japanese perception of korea is also moving in the wrong direction. those japanese with a moderate view, those japanese who are interested in korea-japan partnership are all still affected.

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

indicates the chinese idea of pertaining japan on the other side by trying to create some sort of a united front on history, vis-à-vis japan. what can the united states do to improve the situation? united states is an important partner and a common ally of korea and japan. so you will certainly have to be conscious and aware of the reactions from both friends, korean reaction and the japanese reaction. i have been in politics for 10 years, and i have been leading the delegation from korea to participate in a trilateral parliamentary legislative exchange in u.s. and korea and japan. and i found that when we talk

about sensitive issues between korea and japan such as an issue on our territory, the sex slave issue -- very emotional, and the shrine issue which is explosive, our japanese counterparts from tokyo tended to behave very rationally without american sense. maybe our japanese counterparts think that koreans behave well with our american friends, as well. so i think there is some kind of a spirit, a dialogue, a partnership, even when we talk about sensitive issues the between the two sides. mind you, united states cannot disregard the issues, the phony issues between korea and japan.

u.s. was the leading international leader after the war to make an arrangement for japan and for korea, including sensitive issues, including u.s. support for korea-japan diplomatic normalization, including our trilateral security framework to the turner north korean -- to deter north korean threat. so this is a matter for the united states, as well. in retrospect, the united states have played, whether it wanted or not, directly or indirectly, to close the gap, bridge the relationship between korea and japan. as i mentioned, with normalization of diplomatic relations between korea and japan, they were quite controversial response from domestic population.

a man was abducted from tokyo, korean intelligence agency, and the bilateral relationship got to the bottom. the united states was there to help improve the situation. from tokyo, the bilateral relationship got to the bottom. the united states was there. to help improve the situation. there was another incident where our first lady was taken by a korean-japanese who grew up in japan and who came to korea and assassinated the first lady. there was another disaster in the relationship between korea and japan. japan said we are not responsible. so the united states acted as a bona fide mediator.

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

in that sense, the three-way conference among president obama and prime minister abe in the netherlands to talk about common issues of security, north korean nuclear issues and how to promote the nuclear situation in a dangerous world was well done. and i say that the u.s. government did the right thing at the right time. it should have occurred last year on the occasion of the apec in indonesia where the three leaders could get together. at that time, president obama could not participate in the meeting because of the issue in washington. i think it was well done.

i propose that we should have a summit meeting between prime minister abe in the near future. the two countries could make serious efforts to make it happen. we have not been talking to each other for too long. even in a family between husband and wife, they talk each other. if not, this is a serious family issue. the united states should make its own efforts to facilitate this encounter, friendly encounter between the two sides. i assume that a serious dialogue is going on between china and japan.

as i mentioned, we have seen the meeting between two countries, china and myanmar. and who knows? there could be china, japan, summit meeting. we can't exclude that possibility between china and japan. and if china and japan can get agreed to holding this summit meeting, why can we have a summit meeting between korea and japan? it does not make sense. the relationship between korea and japan should not be a zero sum game. it would be a positive sum game for someone else.

this is very fatal to the national interest of both sides. korea and japan are not enemies. certainly there is a potential anti-japanese sentiment in korea, but we are not enemies. i recollect the history of the middle east, egypt and israel, reluctantly got to agree to meet at camp david in 1978 and signed the documents. israel conceded the sinai peninsula, the gaza strip. we have another crisis, but if

israel and egypt could get together and signed this agreement, why can't korea and japan do it? also we have seen in europe a reconciliation between britain and ireland. which has been there a long time. the friction and resentment and the conflict could be overcome. this is the art of politics and diplomacy that we can create the new history. and personally, i think that if we, korea and japan, can agree to hold the summit meeting before leaders can do it, it is much better, in my view. by doing so, korea and japan can be in a much more comfortable position to talk with china. the two countries share democracy, economy, and respect

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

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

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

japan has made a sincere, genuine regret an apology to korea, the number does not matter. this is not a political issue. this is something on a different dimension. last year, the day after christmas, prime minister abe made a surprising visit. it took many koreans, it was like a kamikaze visit by the prime minister, which shocked many countries. it was an unpleasant surprise to the united states as well. that has made a very fatal blow to the perception of sincerity by the koreans.

again, recently japanese government came out with an idea that we should review the admission of the mistakes and made an apology. he announced the statement, the chief cabinet secretary. he was a deputy prime minister and the leader of the democratic hardy. he was the government's top spokesman. we wonder why japan, at this time, has to review this statement. it should not have started in the first place. it gave the impression japan was trying to see if the legitimacy and the actuality was wrong. the most important thing is that through the review itself, japanese government, abe government, has reconfirmed the

content of the gulf corner statement. that is an important aspect of this drama. i want to tell my japanese friends and japanese government that comfort women issue, the sex slave issue, wartime sex slavery, is not a political issue. it is not a legal issue. it is a moral issue. it is a universal human rights issue. if japan wants to move toward normal state, then this issue has to be resolved by japan itself voluntarily. i regard the economics by the prime minister of japan very highly.

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

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

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

women sex slavery is terrible and egregious, which everyone agreed. the u.s. congress has passed a resolution unanimously on the comfort women issue. the state department in washington has also announced its clear position on this issue. the u.s. government should continue to send a clear message to japan that any careless remarks which reminds people of the military past and japan should not be repeated and that is the interest of everyone. let me say briefly about this self-defense, the abe government is pursuing the idea of collective self-defense.

the cabinet has introduced this concept, the first of july, three cabinet decision. this self-defense should not in any way impair the peace and security in the region. for the u.s. government, for the obama administration, which is pursuing rebalance to asia, more proactive japan security role is something that could be acceptable or maybe something that could be welcomed. the sensitive issue can occur between japan and the neighboring countries. we have seen the postwar japan

faithfully comply to the principal of self-defense in a very restricted way. the cabinet has made consistent interpretation of the constitution in the following way, in japan if they want to exercise self-defense, it has to satisfy three conditions. there should be imminent action against japan. the right of self-defense should be exercised when no other means are available. this should be exercised in a minimum necessary level. these are painstaking principles japan has established during the last 70 years in order to keep in line with the spirit of the peace constitution and prime minister abe is changing it. not by the parliamentary

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

participating in an armed clash. i look at the japanese opinion polls and i see that the majority of the japanese are concerned about this self-defense and they are concerned it should -- if japan could be entangled in an armed conflict against the will of the people, because that is the principle of the constitution. and also the needs political parties, like the one that was critical of the self-defense idea, there are domestic constraints on this pursuit of self-defense. other governments would say no, this is a proactive contribution to peace.

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

therefore the role is to resolve conflict between the sides. and if this suspicion and distrust of the japanese position is resolved, then we can talk about the general security information. the agreement between the two sides. which was derailed recently between the countries. finally, let me talk about north korea. three countries should strengthen its cooperation to deal with north korea nuclear threat. the situation has got worse and worse and worse. i know the strategic patience of the united states in dealing with north korea. we have tried sanctions, we have

tried persuasion, we have tried diplomacy, we have tried deterrence. neither of them worked. i know there is a north korea fatigue in town. but the more important thing is that if we leave this issue as if north korea is there and this nuclear issue can be resolved, it is a terrible mistake. we are faced with more and more dangerous situations from north korea. the situation in the middle east, the u.s. airstrikes in iraq, is very important from the global foreign policy, from the white house. if you allow north korea to

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

active efforts now among the three countries. to give choice to north korea whether they want to pursue this course of danger or make a different choice. we should maintain sanctions on north korea as a means of pressure. at the same time, we should not recoil from the idea of talks with the north. we want to find out what they need about the current situation and what can be done. dialogue is better than confrontation. we have to induce this progress. we have to make a breakthrough. otherwise things will become more dangerous. finally, i mentioned at the

beginning the three countries should try to expand the free trade regime. we are negotiating with china. japan is a member and korea expressed its willingness to join. compared to this, they are in a deadlock because of our problem, conflicts with japan. and also between japan and china. now, there are two emerging free-trade blocks in asia-pacific. including korea, japan, china, new zealand, and 10 other countries. on the asia-pacific side, we have the emerging tpp which is in negotiation.

the tpp is counterbalancing trade blocs. maybe. i think it should somehow accommodate each other eventually of a free-trade network. you might have a different idea. can you think about asia-pacific free-trade without china? and can you think about east asian free-trade without united states? i don't think it makes sense. that is where korea can play its role. we are a strong ally of the united states. we will have a benchmark fta. in the tpp negotiations, all of the countries are trying to see if we can introduce some principles into the regime.

it is playing a role, carrying the big ship. and also through our negotiations with china, we are doing our important role of liberalizing the china market. so they can except the global standard, including products, production, intellectual property, as one. so eventually the negotiation of fta with china could be a good entrance for china to be invited to the tpp, if they want. if china doesn't want, there is no entry. but if china wants, we want to have china, which is more open so we can create a greater asia-pacific free-trade network.

i think i've spent my time enough. i will stop here. thank you for your patience and i would invite your questions. [applause] >> thank you, dr. park. you touched upon many important points about the relationships and i think our audience has many takeaways from today. thank you very much. if you have questions, raise your hand. the microphone is going around the room. please identify yourself if you have a question. this gentleman. please identify yourself.

>> thank you very much for your speech. i agreed with you when you said japan and south korea should have a summit meeting. the sooner the better. the fact it has not happened, prime minister abe himself, demand for the precondition japan should meet. so maybe you can react to that precondition.

and secondly, you spent a lot of time scolding japan they way we have chosen to pay tribute to the war dead and all of that. sweeping statements such as japan has not come to terms with its history and japan has not learned the lessons from its history, especially when they are presented here, is uncalled for. this is not the proper forum. if that is your precondition, japan has to come to terms with its own history before we have a summit meeting. what is the connection?

you come in and you demand this and that. have we ever done that to your country? that is uncalled for. is that your precondition for the summit meeting? thank you. that is my question. >> is there any other question? >> scott thompson with samsung. i'm serious about the connection -- curious about the connection between trade and you politics in the sense of tpp in particular. assuming korea joins, could it improve market access between korea and japan and lower

prices? to lessen tensions on the bilateral security front, is there no connection between the two or could negotiations in the format even heighten tensions between korea and japan along the way? >> the gentleman over there. >> hi, thank you. i wanted to ask if you could share your thoughts on japan's negotiations to resolve the abductee issue. >> one more. >> the gentleman over there. >> georgetown university, thank you for your interesting remarks.

i have two questions. the first one, you have talked about history today. it seems the biggest obstacle on the way to a japan summit is the problem of history. what do you think are the concrete steps the united states can take in order to exercise its leverage on japan? my second question concerns the decision to appoint a new ambassador to japan. he is known to be a good friend of japan. what is your take on that? >> i have enough questions on my plate. i will answer the questions. thank you for your question. i'm not surprised at your response to my speech. the fact that we have this difficult problem between japan and korea is inevitable because our postwar arrangement for korea and japan remains unsolved.

our post or arrangement for korea and japan remains unsolved. politically, we have had a normalization in 1965. i think we have to go beyond our current mistrust and present meant against each other -- resentment against each other to create a new history. that is the duty of the political leaders of these countries. you mentioned preconditions.

i think we can meet as long as endorses ther abbé andement which was reviewed the japanese government itself came to a conclusion that this is in fact the case. is room for korea and japan talk. create aso, we can better environment for peace and stability in asia. it japan and korea cannot come to terms with each other, what build a barrier between the two sides and japan goes one way and japan goes up -- and korea goes our way echo i'm trying to suggest that there will be difficulties.

there is room for korea and japan to seek out together and talk about the future together because we are not enemies. we are friends. japana chance to study in myself. i studied japan history and culture. i remember in the 17th and 18th century, we had a peaceful relationship between the two sides without having more. -- without having or. -- without having war. we had political dialogue based on communication and trust. why can't we reproduce the same communication and trust in the 21st century? it is always possible for us to create a new relationship. i appreciate your question.

i will agree to disagree with you. the bilateral relationship -- i think it is in the interest of all of the countries in the region to move towards ,ultilateral relationship especially in the area of tread and economic partnership. we are interdependent with each other and inseparable. andrecent data of trade transactions among the countries in asia, especially korea and japan and china shows that are interregional trade is growing much faster than our trade with america and europe.

that is the point of the tpp, in my view. korea has expressed its intention to join the tpp while we are negotiating with china. we can play our role on both sides. chineseromote the market opening on the one hand and contribute to the tpp on the other. that is the important role that korea can play. the implementation of the fda and the benchmark for the multilateral framework. -- the fta. guest: it would help to lower bilateral tensions. tpp, itrea joins the has the effect of concluding korea's fta with japan. which we don't have now.

that is the duty of the multilateral agreement. that is the way we should move forward. korea is the only country in asia now which has fta with both europe and america. finishessuccessfully its fta with china, for the time being, we will be the only country in the world that is fta with all three major markets. i think that puts korea in the center stage of the global fta network. japanquestion, about -north korea negotiations. there is great interest on one hand and great concern on the other. it looks like we are having an ironic twist in our relationship with china and japan.

traditionally, north korea was perceived as an area of china. south korea was a major economic partner and close neighbor of japan. the trend is moving in another direction. visited seoul before pyongyang. japan is talking with north korea about the abductee's from north korea. whethero conviction north korea can actually deliver what japan wants in terms of .ringing back the abductees if they are alive, they should come back. i think there are limits to what

north korea can do. , we are imposing sanctions on north korea. the united nations and united states and japan and korea, to o. there is potential concern that takes thismehow opportunity to change its policy toward north korea and changes sanction regime, it could work in a different direction with international sanction resumes -- regimes against north korea. there are limits to what north korea can do. i hope that japan can bring the japan.es back to from a humanitarian viewpoint. that is the best scenario. i wish it can happen.

then there might be room for further progress. i do see the limits on that front. ,inally finally, japan and korea bilateral summit, there are obstacles what can be done. i mentioned that we agree to disagree but there is not a reason for that alone. since the japanese government has come to the conclusion that error statement is indelible, it remains valued but it's a difficult start. i think prime minister abe should make it clear that if he wants to improve the situation with south korea, he should take the initiative. if japan can send it special envoy to china, why not to korea? when he to talk. we need to start our serious dialogue between the two sides.

about the new ambassador designate to japan -- i was surprised, too. he is a very respected and distinguished korean political leader of the country. it was a former chairman of foreign affairs commission in the national assembly. he had a career in korean politics. i was surprised. i thought to myself, there might be reason why the korean government has chosen the senior political leader to japan. i think the possible reason could be to strengthen political dialogue between the two countries.

beyond some kind of diplomatic negotiation. we need to go to the essence of the problem, the issues between the two sides. mr. yu hong su could perhaps be the right person to communicate with the japanese political community. i understand he was a friend of the former foreign minister, the father of the prime minister abe. who was very friendly to korea-japan relationship. perhaps that is the area for the new ambassador designate and how he could contribute to a deeper and more serious dialogue with the japanese political leadership. i have not seen him yet. that is my tentative assessment.

>> would you like to take one or two more questions? the gentle man over there- >> you said that the united states should play a mediator role. would you please specify how they can mediate between korea and japan. you have refused to be a mediator. they don't want to take the risk of mediating between the two allies. they want to be a facilitator. >> can i take a couple of more questions? >> ok, the gentle man over there. >> hello, dr. park. i enjoyed your speech heard much.

i am from georgetown university. nongovernmental exchanges between japan and korea -- you emphasize in your space the common confusion tradition between the two countries. i believe in the past decade there has been many exchanges between intellectuals and scholars and students who emphasize on this common heritage. could you please speak briefly about the cultural and educational exchange initiatives between the two countries? do you believe this could lead to a foundation for perennial understanding between japan and korea? >> good question -- one more question. >> one last question over there. >> thank you. you mentioned your concern regarding the new models of major power relationships. could you elaborate more what is exactly the concerns?

the u.s. has pushed back to this new proposal and are asking for details. is it in the interest of south korea that the united states and china have difficulties to establish their relationship? >> let me respond to the three questions, first about the role between the u.s. and japan with the was is a mediator. i don't think the u.s. will politically mediate the relationship between the two countries. it could be counterproductive. if you look back at the history of the three country relationship. we know that the united states directly or indirectly tried to facilitate the improvement of

relationship to join the two countries. it is that it was not just that for the sake of the japan-korean relationship of the interest of the u.s. on its own. this position and the role of the united states i think does not change. it has not changed. in fact, the u.s. government is already working in that direction in my view. the convening of the three country leaders is one good example. as i mentioned, in the united nations 20 or in beijing, why have another trilateral meeting? i think we should talk about something beyond our security issue or strategic issue. we can talk about our economic structure in asia including the

financial structure. the chinese leader made a proposal in seoul about asian interest structure investment bank, aiip. b,. there is a concern in the united states about the chinese proposal because the u.s. will work with the world bank and the asian development bank is in operation. the korean president did not make any commitment. she said let me think about it. i think we can talk about this position or proposal by china about setting up aiib in a trilateral meeting about whether this is a meaningful proposal and would it help the asian financial situation and the asian development or it works in discord with the existing

financial system in asia and in the world. i think this is a relevant topic for three countries to discuss. before we make our decision, we need to make sure that the chinese proposal is in line with the global government's and the global standard of governance. it has to do with the ownership of the bank in terms of the propulsion of the fund that korea can contribute and the koreans responsibility and the rights in running this bank which is not at all clear. i think this could be a relevant topic. my view is that this momentum

for a three-way communication among the top leaders in korea, u.s., and japan should continue in some way possible. that's the way the united states can play its role as a facilitator of the trilateral dialogue. i think it's different from over mediation. past history, the united states is making its position clear. president obama statement and the state department's statement all indicate that this is a moral issue, this is a universal human rights issue, not just the past history between korea and japan. united states is maintaining a neutral position between japan and korea but on this issue, the u.s. position to me is quite clear. on the second question, i think this is really important,

perhaps more than the political or security issue we have discussed. this is for the future generation of leaders between the two sides, the intellectual and scholastic and the cultural exchange should be strengthened between japan and korea. the history between the two sides, they have been communicating for more than 230 years. this is the history that we should look into much more seriously. how come the two countries after two bloody wars could manage to send and receive its large-scale cultural and diplomatic delegation reaching out to about 500 people for one year going

back and forth and talking with the japanese counterparts. from the korean viewpoint, it was necessary perhaps to bring our people back. 75,000 people from japan to korea. at the same time, maintain peace . from the tokogawa government standpoint, it was good to establish its domestic and political legitimacy and to stabilize the situation in japan. korea wanted peace and japan wanted stability. i think it was a common ground upon which this large-scale regular diplomatic and cultural contact could be made. i will be delighted to see the reproduction of this spirit of communication and trust between the two sides.

that way we can create the young leaders from college and the civic society to visit japan. we can also invite the japanese young leaders, their counterparts to, to come to korea and talk. i have seen a report by korean high school students who spent five days with her counterparts in japan are it the korea-japan cultural program. it was and just things to see in the memo she said i don't like japan. i did not like japan and i don't like japanese people. i think japanese don't like us, too. i was reluctant to join this program. because my mother wants me to study more. i stayed there for five days.

after five days, my thought has changed. she said the japanese are very polite people. they are friendly. they're compassionate and sympathetic, i like them. maybe in the future, i would like to find a job about some sort of cultural relationship between korea and japan. she said my parents are worried because i became too friendly to japan. this is a fantastic memo, a fantastic report that i saw from a cultural and educational exchange program. i would like to let you know that there is a foundation, the korea-japan cultural ambition which is doing a fantastic job of providing the golden ridge between the young leaders for the future. finally, on the question about

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

there is another concept than what the u.s. administration is thinking about. perhaps we can develop it into a more constructive concept. whatever brand you name it, as i mentioned at the beginning of my talk, having a constructive partnership with china from the u.s. viewpoint is in the interest of two powers and also in the interest of all the powers involved. korea, from our viewpoint, should continue to play, to send a message to the u.s. and to china and perhaps to japan that in order to create a stable and constructive international relation in asia, u.s.-china relationship first of all should

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

have a big impact on the relationship for the remaining time of the abe government. i am relieved to hear your comments today and i'm delighted you could join us today and give all this information and remarks. please join me in thanking dr. park jin. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> democrats in montana have chosen amanda curis to be their nominee for senate in november's midterm election. the announcement came a few hours ago in a convention in montana. she is a first-term state

lawmaker. she enters the race after john walsh backed out after allegations of plagiarism as a student at the war college. she will face steve daines, currently for -- currently facing his term. we will hear about the midterm elections during tomorrow's newsmakers. our guest has the political group known as emily's list. one of the things she talks about is her group's role in encouraging women to vote. have talkedcrats about turnout issues they may have in the midterm election as opposed to a presidential year, young women is the group of drop-off voters that are more likely to turnout in a presidential year. what kind of things are emily's list doing to ensure that that democratic leaning group will show up at the polls. >> it is such an important part

of the midterm gain -- the term game we are playing. there are a lot of young women voters we need to get to these polls. ago -- it was 20 years ago. we started our program, which is an independence -- independent expenditure arm. wer those two decades now have been doing research on how women are thinking about voting and how they best get their information. with those years of history and information we are able to mobilize and educate women voters across the country. if you look back to the north carolina and see some of our television spots, we are talking about the issues they want to talk about. we have candidates who are supporting the issues that ac

will provide them opportunities moving forward. that is a big piece of moving women to the polls. we have to talk about women issues that are affecting their daily lives. young women, not getting paid the same as their male counterpart is a huge issue. arm hasliated research done some amazing research. folks should check it out. a huge percent of the population was really moved by this issue. a motivation factor for women getting to the poll. we see that happening. that is in states across the country. >> you can see more of that at 10 a.m.omorrow and 6 p.m. eastern