by new, followed hampshire and north carolina. it is supposed to be an incentive for states to all the primary contest between art -- march and june. they are expected to vote on this later this afternoon. "newsmakers," india governor mike pence talks about politics and state issues. in 2012.ected watch the interview sunday at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on c-span. &a," charlie"q wrangle talks about more than 40 years in the house of representatives and his life before public office. watch the interview on c-span. week's special primetime

programming on the c-span networks. monday, from glasgow, a debate on scottish independence. tuesday, issue spotlights on irs targeting of conservative groups. wednesday night, the risible of onvard's preparatory school targeting students from backgrounds. on thursday, antipoverty programs. and friday night, native american history. on c-span2 next week, but tbn prime time. monday, a discussion about school choice. tuesday night at 8:00, right or john o'brien on how the poor can save capitalism. on wednesday, the biography of neil armstrong. thursday at 8:00, a tour of book publishers simon and schuster. and friday, in-depth with former congressman ron paul.

onamerican history tv c-span3 -- monday, the reconstruction era and civil rights. tuesday, the end of world war ii and the atomic bomb. wednesday night, the 23 -- in the third anniversary of the follow-up the berlin wall. there's day, a look at how attitudes toward world war i changed through the course of the war. and on friday, the apollo moon landing. find our schedule one week in advance at www.c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. join the c-span conversation. like this on facebook. follow us on twitter. foundationtage recently hosted a forum looking at u.s. relations with northeast asia. next, remarks from retired admiral dennis blair.

he is followed by south korean ambassador to the u.s. ahn ho-young. this is an hour. [applause] ?alter [applause] >>thank you. to begood to hear her -- here amongst the many friends. we're here to talk about a pretty serious issue and that is a matter of history. of course when we say history what we're talking about really is japanese occupation of korea, world war ii and the lead up to world war ii. it it's funny you never reference the post world war two history and you're talking about history, the many decades now of toanese contribution international relations and the economy, but nevertheless, we know what we're talking about when we say history. even listing the events can be a matter of controversy so for now

we will let the word history speaks for itself and let our guests unpack the word for us a little bit. we call it american optimism if we can getut i hope through conversation about how we isolate the disputes that japan and korea have over matters of the past and talk thet ways he can manage issues going forward so we can manage the real issues in the relationship as well as the trilateral relationship with the united states. to lead off the gush and we're very pleased and honored to welcome admiral blair to the stage. former u.s. pacific command and former director of national intelligence and former director of national intelligence. chairman of the board of the peace foundation usa. sps in tokyo was very kind to post dement in tokyo a couple of

months ago. front if yous out would like to take a look at it. you can go to our website to find a copy of the speech. he also hosted us and president dement in washington. we are very pleased to be in a position to return the favor and invite admiral blair to the heritage to the foundation to share stock -- thoughts on the stage. admiral blair. >> thanks very much. it is a pleasure to be here to talk about what is a very serious subject. oncepanish philosopher famously remarked that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

ringing phrase has generally been taken out of context and use it to justify false analogies for current actions. a more intrinsic quote has been it often seems to me these three powerful countries in the region of china, republic of korea, japan all with long entangled histories are rolling down the stream of history, facing backwards. they are rowing hard, lots of energy, blades are flailing the water, foam is flying everywhere. moving somewhat faster than the currents would carry them,

however, they mostly see their own wake. they've mostly see the water and the shoreline that is really behind them. they see what is ahead of them only when they turn their head and take a quick look over their .houlders they do not seem to have a quick destination in mind. did not have a sense of how quickly the larger currents are carrying them down the river. consider china. chinese leaders are driven by what they see as 120 five years of history of humiliation and are determined never to suffer a time like that ever again. steering by the way got their powerful past humiliation they are less aware of the huge currents propelling them down the river tom and the greatest of these are the currents of greater economic relations and mobilization. europeans true

countries and the united states carved concessions out of china in the late 19th century but for the same entries that has propelled china to become the second-largest, second most powerful economy in the world. .r consider japan japan is making the new defense policy not so much by defining its interest, look into the revising a up but by single constitutional interpretation of the past. that interpretation of its ability to exercise the right of collective self-defense. river,rents in the big nature of the river bank has changed fundamentally since that time. the 1930'sof developed into rising era of passion system and worldwide depression that bread desperation and extreme activity to political views and many

countries around the world. the world of the future is not one of ideological motivated our blocs contesting for world dominance. rather a world of contesting individual nations come and sometimes acting individually, sometimes cooperating and functional multilateral groups of various kinds. a world in which failing states pose as much danger as to powerful states and which extremist violence can pose dangers to develop and it interconnected world. a world in which a major country like japan needs to deploy diplomatic, economic and military powers in sophisticated ways to cooperate with like-minded allies to preserve security and prosperity for themselves for the region and for the world. japan requires major changes for security policies, not just legacy concepts from a past age. finally, consider korea.

korean leader attitudes are driven in part historical fears that both japan and china somehow look down on korea based on historical experience. they fear economic domination by china similar to the military domination of korea in the past. they reject japanese apologies for it actions during the colonial time because they do not consider them to be sincere. korean suspect they did not respect them. they celebrate to national separate holidays on japanese colonial rule. independence day commemorating the effort of 1919 march first and national liberation day august 15. just this year joining with the chinese they completed a new on honored as a patriot but condemned as a terrorist in tokyo for a fascinating general of korea and former prime minister of japan in 1909. yet the big currents of world koreapment have propelled

to a much more secure position than it has upheld in the past. it has a security treaty with the united states, the most powerful region in the world. territorial conquest has been discredited. economic prowess counts for more based on hard work, adaptability, other forms of soft power such as cultural influences were increased we import and and by these measures korea is a very powerful country. it can deal as appear with all nations of the world including china and japan, and should take counsel of the ambition not of its fears. history is important. historical ignorance can cause a country to repeat the same mistake twice. however, remembering too much history, understanding too little is the difference between the past and present can conjure up also historical analogies, restrict the country's ability to make rugrats and cause it to

miss opportunities for positive change. restrictanother care of the effective history of the country's international policies we should note. psychologist tells us that for , individuals, the memory of pleasure is more important and lasting than is the measure of lane -- the memory of pain. poor nations it seems to be equally selective but in different directions. for countries it seems past failures, past injustices are the most powerful memories fake can have and propel action. china, for example, still thinks of itself in part as the developing and we country but china is the second largest economy in the world with nuclear and armed forces to match. the rest of the world thinks china is a very powerful country. is somewhattude dominated by memories of just 15 when the ramp5

control of the government and ran the country into disaster. andveneers of restraint except larry behavior since that time did not seem as important in japan self image. the republic of korea in many ways inks of itself is a small, divided country, a shrimp among whales, many times invaded. rather one of the largest economies in the world with a gdp per capita exceeding more than any of its neighbors. a worldwide reputation for menu fracturing excellence and international peacekeeping operations and major contributor andf peacekeeping international appeal. politics of history that also play a role. government exploits history for partisan and power purposes and episodes of history the most useful for the purposes are often the ones most nucleating -- most humiliating.

democracy is like -- japan and korea exploit insults to bid for political power to appeal the groups with whom the issues have special resonance. it is easy to fall under this syndrome, no politician in a dictatorship or democracy ones to be vulnerable to accusations of inadequate patriotism, softness and supporting the countries on her. -- honor. they mostly believe they can control it. not so much that it causes damage to their countries. thin line in any country between healthy nationalism.d the introduction of controversial historical events in the car policies and politics often blurs the line and sometimes crosses it. even if nationalism does not become extreme, it certainly prevents progress in other areas.

whatever the root cause is and explanation, the exploit and painfulf the nations past -- exportation of the nation's painful past is a conscious political decision, whether it is a controversial wartime trying, raising the comfort women or raising emphasis on an especially brutal long and brutal for. there have been recent extensions to train japan and china on one hand when historical issues did not play such a large and crippling role. leaders in all three countries understood the benefits of cooperation in many areas, business, cultural, people two people were more important to the countries development, while not denying or covering up the historical issues and in many cases taking steps to knowledge apologize for to

them. they did not allow it to dominate the relationship that it prevented progress in the other -- in other areas as is the case now. historical animosities clearly can be a malia rated as aches the experience with germany and most of rest says -- rest of asia's experience. so much for admiring the problem as historical issues and nationalism and international relations. the much more difficult relation -- question is what to do about it. he has two panels that follow our talks that hopefully can come up with ideas about it. let me give you mine. i mentioned earlier, the solution ultimately lies with political leadership.

they must decide it outweighs the advantages. as i mentioned, this has been the case in the past when relations between japan and china were relatively cordial" operative. however, there are other actions that can be taken by others and by their friends and -- my friends in the united states. as a first step they must understand their own histories in a more sure way. all countries have painful past.es in their the united states has a least three major instances of unjust and brutal treatment of large groups of citizens. slavery against african-americans, slaughter of native americans and x per creations of their land am internment of japanese americans in world war ii. in most major historical episodes like these, some leaders and some ordinary citizens access aerobically.

some acted despicably. until a country achieves a full country, itg of its cannot handle the internal pressures to simplify and exploit that history for political advantage and cannot handle the external pressures from other countries from repeated apologies for denial or leverage. however, in my mind there is a much more fundamental and important reason for the citizens of the country to understand their history. as human beings we have to make sense of our lives and the know how we've reached the current situation, what our forbearers .id on the how that affects us it applies to individuals, families, nations. there will always be elements of myths in family and personal and national histories, but as we become more mature on the we need to get below the myths and enter the reality, complex

mixture of heroism, cowardice, loyalty, endurance and surrender that makes a real history the way it actually happened. now it may be too much to hope that china can achieve historical honesty under the current form of government. dictatorships are basically threatened by their own history, and that is why they work so hard to control it. even when they try to deal with it a come up with oversimplifications. they censor serious works of history like the recent biography. however, i do not believe it is too much to hope democracies like japan and korea can pace their own histories more honestly than they do. facing history is much more than just a sentence or two in a school textbook.

it is the encouragement and widespread discussion of serious works of history such as the recent books of japan 1941, an examination of why japan decided to go to war with the obviously more powerful united states. on examination of korean troops conduct in the vietnam war were aldiers had an -- had reputation for brutality that surpassed other countries. it is based on facts, not on whether book hurts or helps. political cause. research and books are critical. so too are movies, documentaries that reach a wider audience, often with more emotional power. the popular director clint aboutod made a movie hiroshima. it is interesting the movie from the japanese view is more popular in the united states. received more oscar nominations than did the one from the

american point of view. also, based on the american cases of coming to grips with the country's history never ends. it is not the case of putting the sentence and official school textbook, entering and accepting apologies and then moving on. a case of continued research on the facts and research of the time, book about african-americans or in 1960's outlook.different in this sense there really is no place for apology for tea. shameful at says in national history will always be painful and embarrassing and will have to be faced and learned in greater depth. isgetting the history right one important step but there are others. opinion makers, public figures come a media commentator should

emphasize the important trends of the future as much as they talk about the narrow, historical issues of the past. great games countries have made since the end of the cold war, civil war in china have all been enabled by international operations. the economic miracles in japan and china have been based on foreign investment and exports, political developments have occurred through political contact with the rest of the world. territorial aggression has been discredited among advanced nations as a way to increase power. in fact, military aggression whether by the soviet union in afghanistan, united states in considered toally be hugely expensive for dubious games. things have changed since the 1930's and 1940's and 1950's. so while the opinion makers and

influential spokesman should not disregard or cover up historical issues, they should place them in a wider context of changes that have taken place since those years. most of all, this puts a premium on national leadership. it requires careful calibration of the flick statements along with private medications. big public actions, even accompanied by very public are simply fodder for exploitation by political opportunist. public opinion eads to be shaped by smaller steps, thoughtful public statements on days of historical significance, encouragement to private initiative to the history right, public admonitions of statements whether made by a political ally or political enemy, wherever they are made. there is a particular role to be played by leaders who have

strong nationalist credentials. they can uniquely lead their countries to put historical animosities he heightened them without the risk of inciting domestic backlash that might in turn only create a further spiral of acrimony. as richard nixon's lead an opening to china, an opening to capitalism, so some current or future nationalist leader in japan or korea has an opportunity to leave his or her mark on history. in addition, an important place for very private communications among national leaders. trusted emissaries need to be used to test whether an overture would be reciprocated. because public dayton's and not actions are so subject to true intentions they need to be conveyed through trusted channels. national leaders and immediate staff need to resist the temptation to week everything they do to the press to get the appearance of action and the appearance of masters of the situation.

so let me conclude by providing the rest of the store by george santi ando's famous quote about history. about the dangers of forgetfulness, he goes on to explain manhunt and true orgress in which no events habits have grasp onto instincts. this is truly the challenge for the leaders and citizens for the powerful countries of southeast asia. they need to understand their own histories and understand what has changed since the time the historical events occurred. they need to avoid history impeding development of a better future, rather than rolling ships a state while facing the stern, they need to face forward on the ground a teller and steer confidently into the future. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you, admiral. hoping to look into more detail on the program. heritage has a long history of .elationships none closer with those in south korea. that is why i am honored to introduce you to the ambassador of the united states. he was appointed just this year the president. fire to this he served as ambassador to foreign minister trades. serviceeen at foreign 36 years. needless to say, far more than i can go to in their brief introduction. suffice it to say the ambassador is an outstanding representative of the country, good friend of the heritage foundation and

someone we are proud to welcome to our stage. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. i should begin by thanking our invitingfoundation for me to the seminar. this morning i was having breakfast with one of you, and i said it is amazing 200 people would show up on the relationship between korea and japan in august. i said it would only happen in only washington, d.c., no other place in the world. i guess we both much of it to it fact that you organized at the heritage foundation, so thank you very much. -- at the samee

time i have to say was very inspiring. thank you, admiral blair. upon issues ing history. he was depending on psychology and then depending on political science. termsruly at in disciplinary approach he has applied to japan. at the same time, i have a far simpler approach should. i will be a book to presented in mr -- far more simpler manner. in order to do it let me raise three questions and then try to answer the three questions as observed by traditional relations and japan. my first question is what is the present state of relations in korea and japan? there simpler answer would be not the best.

be very simple answer would very easily shared by all of you. but i would have to add in the sense that if you look at the part, and if i look to the , i am more optimistic when i look in the future. when i look upon the past 50 years, then korea and japan normalized the relationship in 1965. so next year we would celebrate the 50th anniversary of normalized relation -- relationships. there has been ups and downs. all in all there has been tremendous progress between the relationship of korea and japan. is why i feel very much encouraged about the

relationship. , i am look to the future will grow from strength to strength. why? because we share so many things. same values, same interest. they always say, geography is destiny. so when i think about all of this commonality between korea and japan, i am very confident for the coming 50 years and beyond we can develop the relationship from strength to strength. there has been ups and downs. could apply history and perspective and political science perspective and apply even a psychiatry at this -- psychiatrist perspective. at the same time i think whatever perspective you take there is ups and downs.

there wasrn has been recognizing the past as it was and taking responsibility for the past, it created a political space for bringing the relationship to a higher place. that has been a pattern we experienced over the past 50 years. our is the reason why in view we are deeply concerned about what is happening in the past several years. time, what ime think about the future i am very confident we will be overcoming the relationship between korea and japan. for the time being let me think about the second question, which is given the fact that we could develop relationships and positive manner and are so

confident about the coming six years and be beyond, what should be done today, that will be the second question. the simple answer to the question would be a lot. there are so many things we could be doing together between korea and japan. there are a lot of things we could be doing today and then we could be doing them on two different tracks. i would call it the track of history. the reason why i said that his korea-japan relationship is a nation to nation relationship. we know how we can develop relationship. we can strengthen the relationship insecurity. we can strengthen it in the economy. that is what we do. that is what korea does. does.s what japan

that is what we should be doing in the normal way. years ins i spent 36 koran foreign service. these days i often look back about what i personally did when it comes to the relationship between korea and japan. then i cannot be reminded again and again about what korea used to do. personally walked hand-in-hand the time when korea had to walk very hard back in 1996. when i came to geneva back in be9, then i used to responsible for human rights issues. again, i was walking closely with my counterpart.

at the time the gentleman who later on became an ambassador of course. then i used to walk very closely with him on which issues? human rights issues. i impression at the time is there are large number of member countries of the human rights commission at that time. the time isn of other countries coming from asia , no other countries and japan with which we could share so many things when it comes to the human race issue. in 2000 to an increasing number of soccer fans in the united states. in 2002 korea and japan we were supposed of football games. it does not happen too often. a very limited number when more than one country, two countries will join forces and that

happened in 2002. i personally worked on the issue. 2003, president of south korea came to japan. --the time i was directional director of international issues and was wondering if there is anything i could do to develop a normal listed relationship between korea and japan and i came up with this idea. i think many of you have been to international airport is aged. nearer. another one far i thought about tokyo. at the same time it is far nearer here to tokyo. so i came up with an idea. go all the wayto

fly? thathy can't we is the idea that i came up with. then we made a proposal in japan and the japanese like the idea. that is how it began to fly. that is the reason why each time felt much pride about and i was encouraged when i saw high school students coming to korea on a school expedition. fact, i could see a large group of high school students coming from japan who were on theto visit korea political flight. these are the examples of some of the things i personally did.

so we in fact have been doing many things to strengthen relationships. getting back to admiral layers point recognizing the past is important but at the same time we have to continue to make for as, practical efforts normal relationship between korea and japan. then i have to tell you this, again i am quoting admiral blair. issues we should be addressing. and then again admiral blair was the interdisciplinary approach about how we should be understanding issues of history, but at this time time, let me

repeat to you there is a clear and distinct pattern in the relationship. there is a reason why we keep on one in fact i already shared with you what i personally did in 1990's and 21st century to strengthen relations in japan. one reason we cannot do that very unfortunately these days is because of some of the statements coming from japan. very difficult actions being made in japan. that in fact is the reason why we keep on saying the importance of recognizing the past in a fair and honest manner. that is important in the relationship between korea and japan.

so as a matter of fact i raised this issue not only with japanese but those in washington , and the other day i was talking to one diplomat coming had a very, and interesting experience behind him in the sense that he is a european diplomat but at the he started political reform phd at tokyo university and his dissertation was on modern history of japan. this is whate of he had to say. he said when it comes to issues of comfort women, the japanese are suffering from the problem of their own creation. recognized accepted, the issue of comfort women and a fair and honest manner, the issue would have long been gone by this time.

they are creating their own problem and struggling from their own problem and very painful to look upon them as somebody who spent so many years in japan studying japanese history and working as a professional in japan it is very painful to watch them. that is what i heard from the european diplomat here in d.c. so when it comes to japanese leaders i think there are two different kinds. i think all japanese leaders, are thinking about making a proud country out of japan but at the same time some of them thinking they are doing that through recognizing the past as it was that we in fact can make a proud country. think it isme that through denial of what happened in the past that we cannot reach

the same objective. i think as i already told you there are ups and downs. when we have to deal with the tendency to deny what happened in the past, it makes it very difficult to strengthen our relationship. having said that, i have come to the third point, which is when i was ambassador for one year now which i am come to base again and again in a very different corners of washington. there is where we as americans look upon the relationship between korea and japan, how could we do in the united states theave you to improve relationship between korea and japan cap code that is a i received over and

over again for the past one year. my simple answer is this, which is more of the same. in theu have been doing u.s. congress and department, the white house am a what you have been doing in the pink tanks, what do been doing in the u.s. newspapers, that in fact has been very helpful for us to try to related -- improve the relationship. why do i say that? it is because i am getting back to the point by admiral blair, which is less -- let's recognize the past failure honestly and that is what president obama has been saying again and again. andad a press conference that is exactly what he said. the first thing that might -- must happen is to recognize the past failure and honestly come is the same message is

the message from the department of state was said and prime ministers. they wanted to recognize the past as they were. that as we know it has been helpful. those states have been helpful to improve -- improve the relationship within the u.s.. that is the message coming again and again from decision-makers as opinionn, as well makers in this town, including the heritage foundation. that is the reason why i say thank you for what you have been iing in the united states and think you can keep on doing what you have been doing so far.

there are my three points. thank you so much. [applause] >> i am going to turn it over to to think about the burning questions. nine of chris nelson has one as always. -- i know that chris nelson has one as always. >> thank you. terrific come a very important statements. i will try to run them both and my report tomorrow. was the ambassador invited and was he not able to come for some reason to this? >> this is an

independent effort. clarification in case someone wondered. you use a lot is of descriptive thinking in your speech. prime were to provide minister avi on what he should say in order to have president park and the korean friends , what with the prime minister have to say that you think the korean leadership come andept as ok yeah see wondering from what you

as a practitioner, do you think aboutpossible to talk korea, japan, political reconciliation under the current japanese leadership or is this something we're just going to have to wait out and hope for the best? thank you. as i said in my remarks, the visitors to the shrine have overwhelming symbolism that it is hard to shred out the elements of what is true and not true. if you read the prime minister statements he makes in conjunction with the visits to the shrine, they are very good,

balanced statements. the dim drowned out by of the fact of showing up at the thene with all of controversy that many experts in the audience are more familiar with than i the way it was established to what the museum says and the shrine says the fact that honor some and not others. all of that has gained a size any really dwarfs whatever japanese prime minister can say. i said in my remarks i think the way not to make -- the way to make progress is not to try to take short-term actions but somehow change symbolism because i think that is the work of generations. i think my advice to the prime minister would be to show respect to the armed forces of

japan, civilians who died in the way, whichfferent gets at the honorable, patriotic the debt we all owe to those who put on a uniform and fought for us and yet is not overwhelmed by the symbolic significance of the place. with respect to the second thoughts that just came from the floor, i think it is not necessarily who is in power in , it is not decided by the citizens in japan and what we could or could not do but i think at the same time what is inortant is understanding korea and japan about what would work for the best benefit of japan.

than a fifth of the international community and i think what must happen here is understanding what must be fromn -- must have been japanese leaders. i totally agree when he says what explanations are important but at the same time when politicians make an action and the symbolism of the actions. i think they are enormously important. the considerations could be made before any statement or action are taken and they impact would be extremely helpful in strengthening relationships between korea and japan. at theys have to look track of history, and i sincerely hope the strengthening relations would not be undermined in the truck of history.

the would like to ask ambassador. i often hear the question about way -- when there may be a summit meeting between the leader of japan and rok. i know that one japanese newspaper has argued it is quite unfair that the koreans, according to them, are asking for preconditions to be met by japan before such a meeting could take race and somehow they think why did they have to be reconditioned? could you address the issue? are their preconditions or is that slowing down the possibility of a meeting? >> of course. the thing is there are meetings between korea and japan taken place.

there are different levels of ministers. there are different military meetings, etc., etc.. and then why are we having for meeting? i think they are tools, instruments. i think we should apply the practical mind in the sense that it's a summit meeting will be there, then we should have thosen assurance that meetings in fact would go in the direction of further strengthening relationships in japan. there will behown certain expectations created, and that expectation would be when the leaders meet, we would move to a place that would be better than where we are today. that level of expectation, if it is met, that would be good, but

if it is not met, there would be frustration. frustration goes in the direction of undermining the relationship rather than improving it. i would call it common sense. way in the back. blue shirt. as the gentleman mentioned, emphasizing the importance of issues among other issues related to history, i feel you're compelled to make a couple of comments about soul-searching of the issue on the japanese side and ask for your comments. japan in the past,

on the issue, is the condition the japanese military systematically coursed recruitment of the innocent evidence after research and research shows in japan ignores such thing. there was one lone isolated case where officers of the imperial the forcefully coerced prosecution after two months it was suspended by the japanese command and officer in charge punished. this also was executed. again and again the japanese understanding is no systematic cordial of policy.

ago most recently, 10 days the most seriously dependent upon source of information for the critics of japan published a major retraction of the contention that paper has been pushing previously. there is no evident. so again and again. so what would you say to the most recent retraction, and then the background that i most recently explained? >> i am so glad we have someone of 36 years of diplomatic experience to handle that. even so you might need a second to cool down. well the question is coming

from a correspondent of reminds me of a commission with a commission on statement. then when this idea first came up from the japanese government that they would be in a sense of establishing the review, then our idea was, what are you going to do with respect? are you going to maintain or modify the code the answer was we're going to maintain it. if thatnd question was is the case, what will be commission or the mandate for the commission? they said the response was it is to further strengthen the basis of the statement. when that review commission came out with a report, there was not disappointment on the part of korea. why? on the one hand we heard

the chief critic of japan stating we will continue to support the statement. at the same time am a what is the kono statement? there were three elements. the first element was core shouldn't. coercion in the sense that the japanese military was responsible for the management of military process during this time. second was admission of pain, coached. been third point was, because at the japanese authorities engagement that hadse of the pain been caused to the members of the process, japanese government and japanese evil are under heavy response ability arising from that. then we in fact went through the somehow thend then was the coercion was

obliterated. i will not go into the details but what was suggested is it was overrated. there is a reason why we could not fully understand the motivation for setting up the mission -- commission and the first place. if they are selling -- saying the element of coercion in fact that there is something to be questioning the elements of caution, then in fact how could you say we was banned by the kono statement? that in fact is the reason why -- let me remind you a point that was made is somehow there was an issue in japan that somehow the issues of histories for which japan takes responsibility again and again but somehow korea does not accept the responsibility and keeps on raising the issue of responsibility but as a matter of fact that few is wrong.

i know that but at the same time if you look at the instances when the element of coercion, which in fact has been more than throughntly established various different channels is being questioned again and again, and that from time to time by japanese authorities, as that is the reason why in fact be historyet history and move ahead. that is the reason why we keep on saying denial will not be helpful. be thence would in fact starting point and must be the starting point. thank you. >> could i just add a more general point? the history of asia from the 1930's to about 1955 or so is not pretty in any way that you can think about it.

there were a series of brutal acts a can on a large scale by many countries, against many countries. there were a a lot of innocent victims. there were some victims who were not innocent. it was a nasty place for an long time. cann't think any country have a monopoly on righteousness in the eventshame of those 50 years. what i was trying to say is the attempt to hold a "we were "ight" and "you were wrong sweepstakes is not going to help our children and grandchildren understand what happened there, to be able to incorporate it into their memories, and the histories of their families, their fathers, the grandparents, their ants, their mothers, and

hopefully move on to a better approach that will not kill and brutalize so many people, or allow other people to do it. it seems to me, this issue is so much bigger than whether on one particular day a particular thing happened. we are playing around with shoelaces when we have a huge set of major issues we have to deal with. what i'm talking about is trying to get a large, overall understanding of this timeframe in which there were some heroes who attempted to keep bad things from happening, or who refused to carry out orders that were barbaric and right against their creed. there were some who went ahead and did it. there were many who did nothing and did not know about it, or wish they did. and perhaps could have made a difference. it is that sort of sad understanding of what went on that i think is the key to moving on, and which will not be

solved by simply, o, yes, government was responsible -- was responsible for act be, or government see was responsible -- government "c" was responsible for actd. we need to take the full extent of understanding of what went on and move forward to a better future. >> just briefly, i wanted to say that i think this frustration that some of us face, or are stuck in the middle of, we spent a great deal of time that -- telling our korean friends that the japanese have already dealt with this, have already apologized 60 times, or what ever the count is. and to some extent, that is true. but then questions like that

raise the prospect that actually you haven't. we get stuck in the middle. true,arge extent, it's the government has officially dealt with the issue. but as long as you take every opportunity to reopen it, then that is what we have problems, and the ups and downs of the last 50 years. >> they should be reopened and a sense of understanding, but to use it as a clinical instrument time and again, i think, is what is keeping us for making progress. -- from making progress. >> yes, right here. mike billington from executive intelligence review. ambassador, and perhaps also admiral blair, at think it is clear that many people here in the u.s. are anxious for japan-korea collaboration because they want them to be joining forces against china. and as is reflected with the

effort to get the sad missiles the ploy, which the koreans believed were deployed against china, not north korea, and the recent effort to prevent korea from joining with china's asian .nfrastructure bank proposals i would like for you to address this. i know that the relationship with china and russia is crucial for getting peace within the peninsula and for longtime economic development. if you could address that side of the issue, please. economictrue that relations between japan and china are getting more important. was an article in the "washington post" with a very high ranking government official in japan. ,nd there was in a sense , in the sense

that it was a very simplistic theme. which was, as when there is an increasing economic relationship between europe and russia, and reasons why the country -- the countries are not reacting strongly against russia with you right -- with regard to ukraine. that thea risk relationship can create and that the united states could be undermined. that high government official thatan expression surprised me. i was thinking about it, which must be the strategic

relationship between korea and japan? in my presentation i was emphasizing again and again about common interests that we share between korea and japan. and those kind of statements someone in a responsible position in the japanese government, it could very likely have an effect on the relationship upon the countries in the region. i truly believe it is not going to happen at all, to undermine and theon between korea united states, because of the increasing economic relationship between korea and china. that is very simplistic. and i have to remind you, and myself, that the security alliance, the security partnership, the only country allies is korea has a with the united states.

and we think about security, there is only one. i could come up with hundreds of reasons why, but it is really one powerful reason why we don't think it is going to happen at all. it is the statements being made by the department of state and the white house. is not going to undermine korea's for the ship with the united states, not even by one iota. >> let me ask one question here, because admiral blair, i don't want to miss the opportunity to ask you about this, particularly if you could comment on the new guidelines on self-defense from in thend where it fits need for u.s. activity in the region. >> i will be glad to talk about

that. let me just add a quick item. i don't want to let this item stand that the united states somehow wants to get japan and korea together to form an anti-chinese coalition. that simply is not what the american interest is in this situation. china is attempting an approach in east asia, which involves trying to gain bilateral advantage in the series of individual of relationships with countries, and it prefers to operate in a sort of spoke and in itselationship interest with individual countries, and try to increase them as the management increases. the united states, korea, and japan, i think, are all countries which believe in principles, common

which applies to countries large or small in economic and security and territorial dispute and the whole rest of it. i think what the ambassador was saying about common values has to do with these values and the way we approach problems and the way we believe security and prosperity should be achieved in , byregion, by compromise that we alliples apply to. in that sense, that is what we countries ofcratic have betterpan to relations with each other, so they can work to support these principles, which we think apply to making progress in that part of the world. on collective self-defense, as i mentioned in my remarks, i think japan has very fine military

equipment, very well-trained officers and men, and an absolutely abysmal system for bringing that to bear in support of japanese and common interests around the world. set ofuilt on this principles and an interpretation of the constitution that was set entirelyrs ago under different circumstances. and i think every step that to give its armed forces more flexibility to be used by the government, to solve japan's security problems and common security problems, it anticipating problems, participating in disaster relief, helping to deter north korea and so on, is a step to the good. i think the steps taken recently are in the right direction and i hope that they continue. shouldn't be confused

a return to 1930's style militarism in japan. japan today is so far from putting the percent the month back on the bows of the ships. it.nnot even imagine i would like to separate these histories and get the history right. japan will operate in armed forces, which will operate, i'm sure, as has japanese policy been in the past 70 years, in and are -- in a responsible manner. >> thank you, we will have to leave it there. in thankingjoin me the ambassador and admiral for being with us today. [applause]