Cashman said, third time's the charm. There's that picture, by the way, when he was 11 years old at the 2001 World Series. Yeah, third time was the charm. And by the way, the Yankees lost that game. That was game six of the 2001 World Series. One of his idols at the time, Andy Pettit, was on the mound that day. And Andy Pettit was part of the contingent that went out to the West Coast. And I feel, Bob, the Yankees had a great blueprint in pursuing Cole. Everyone knew that Cole was going to end up being the highest-paid pitcher in major league history this offseason. How high was that number going to go? For the Yankees, it went to nine years, $324 million. But the Yankees also let him know how much they wanted him, how much they desired him, and the way that they pursued him on the West Coast. All right.


Welcome, everybody. Ambassador, thank you. We're delighted and honored that you're here and to lead this conversation. Just, I think before we begin, I must say I've been going to Korea for, I suppose, 30 years. Many people in the room, some of them are old like me, like Skip over there. And I can remember, you know, going down, walking along the Han River before it got pretty, you know. I mean, we've been doing a lot to improve the Han River. And it always used to be a great gathering place on weekends, you know, for Korean families. And what always impressed me was how deeply Koreans love their children. I mean, it's just something magic, this very, very deep, emotional tie inside families and especially children. And it tells me why this was such an enormous tragedy with the ferry. I mean, we've all been, our hearts have been aching for everybody in Korea. It's just, the world feels out of joint. So I think we should all just, in our own private ways, we all have our ways. We do this in our personal lives, our spiritual lives. Remember Korea, and remember the families of Korea. There are families right now that are mourning a loss that's deeper than anybody can explain. And it's our role now. There's not much we can do individually so far away other than to hold them in our memories. And to tell them that they're not alone to get through this tragedy. And it's a terrible tragedy. And Korea is a strong people. I know this from my own personal experience, really strong people. Korea will come through this, but it hurts. It hurts deeply.  Please, on behalf of everybody here, please convey deepest sympathies and very best wishes to the government and to the families, especially for this. I was very pleased that President Obama went out of his way to go to Korea on his trip to Asia. It wouldn't have been right not to go to Korea. You know, when you look at the challenges and the tensions, the strains geopolitically that have been playing out over the last year, it's become clear to me that this relationship with this crucial partner country is more critical by the week. And I'm very glad that the President did visit. There are so many major issues in front of us together. It's not Korea's burden to carry. It's ours to jointly carry. And what I'm hoping that we can do today is learn from you about those conversations, Ambassador, and kind of share in this dialogue with each other, that we can learn more now. It's the follow-through. It isn't just that one visit. Those visits, in some sense, are a bit artificial because everything's worked out in advance, but it's carrying them forward. And I think I hope that you would approach this session with all of these colleagues in that spirit. Help us figure out how to help you. Thank you. To help our government carry it forward. Victor, let me turn it to you to get this started for real. I just want to say thanks to everybody for coming. Thank you, Ambassador Ron, for your working with us so strongly. Through the years. And we look forward very much to hearing you today. Thank you. Victor, why don't you take it over? Thank you. Thank you so much. Are we supposed to look? Yes, up there. Okay. Which side should I be? This side or this side? This is for you. I believe you're on that side. Thank you. Well, thank you, John, for that very kind and thoughtful introduction for today's event. I think we all share the same feelings that John does here at CSIS. Before we begin, let me introduce our guest, Ambassador Ahn Ho-young, who is, as you all know, Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the United States. He joined the Foreign Ministry in 1978 and has held a number of postings throughout his career, most recently as First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Prior to this, Ambassador Ahn served as Korea's Ambassador to Belgium and as head of the Korea Mission to the EU. He was appointed Deputy Minister for Trade at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade from 2008 to 2011, during which time he also was the President Sherpa for the G20 and the G8 Outreach meetings. He has also served as Director General of the Multilateral Trade Bureau and as Director of the International Trade Law Division in the Office of the Minister of Trade. And so he has a very distinguished career. There's much more on his CV that I could take you through, but we only have a limited amount of time. But most importantly, most importantly, he's a graduate of the Edmund A. Wall School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. So Ambassador Ahn was kind enough to come by this afternoon to talk about, assess the visit of President Obama to Seoul last week, as well as have a discussion with all of you here about the way forward in the relationship. So perhaps Ambassador Ahn, I will allow you to, if you could, sort of give us your initial impressions and perspectives and then we can have a discussion. So thank you very much again for joining us today. Thank you so much. Victor, does my microphone work? Yes. Okay, thank you. Well, first of all, thank you so much for being here this afternoon. I just look around the room and I say to myself, well, how could I say best and brightest of Washington, D.C. And then for me, usual suspects, I go around the town, where there are gatherings to discuss about Korean issues, where there are gatherings to discuss about East Asian issues, then I meet with you all the time. Then I should be thanking you, Dr. Henry, for getting together this well, admirable group of people all together at the same time. And then thank you so much for your kind words with respect to this very accident. And you are right in the sense that it is not just the accident. It is just such a large number of young people who were lost. And then it is for that reason that there is this deep, unfathomable, unfathomable, it's difficult to pronounce, a sense of grief back in Korea. And then in fact, I was just concerned how it will impact upon President Obama's trip to Korea this time. But maybe you already saw it yourself. He handled the situation very, very well. He was so sincere and he was so thoughtful in expressing his feelings, his condolences to the Korean citizens. So it was received very, very well. And then maybe many of you would have heard about it, which is that there is a story about Jackson Manolia. It was President Jackson. So when he came to the White House, it was soon after the loss of his wife. So what he did was that he brought a plant of Manolia, Manolia from his garden, and then he had planted it in the garden of the White House. And what President Obama did this time was he brought a small part of that Manolia and then he gave it as a kind of his tribute to the high school where the large number of victims came from. So his thoughtful words as well as this kind of very thoughtful gesture, they were received very, very well. So thank you so much for your kind words and then thank you so much you, the government and then the people of the United States of America have been doing well as we in Korea suffer from this very tragic accident for the past several weeks. With respect to what I'm going to do this afternoon, then I'm going to discuss with you how we have prepared for this President Obama's trip to Korea. What were the objectives we tried to achieve through this visit and how in my view those objectives were met through the visit as well as and then Dr. Henry you're absolutely right when you say that well, presidential visit things in fact are very closely orchestrated and then things have been worked out before the President arrives there but at the same time I think it's a kind of important milestone. Each time it happens it is an important milestone and then before the visit takes place then much work is done and after the visit takes place then again follow-up, as a matter of follow-up then much work is usually done. So you are right, it's a part of the process but anyhow we very much appreciate this visit. So my presentation basically will be in two parts. First of all, objectives we tried to pursue through this visit and then after that how in my view those objectives were met. So the first part which is objectives. In my mind there were about four objectives that we tried to achieve through this visit and the first of them would be to review and renew the 60-year-old alliance between Korea and the United States and then in respect I have to say 2013 last year was a very important milestone in the bilateral relationship between Korea and the United States. Why? Because last year we commemorated the 60th anniversary of alliance between Korea and the United States. So quite naturally when President Park was coming to visit Washington DC in May last year then there was an observation both in Washington as well as in Korea that we must take advantage of this opportunity to review the 60-year-old alliance between Korea and the United States and think about how we could be renewing in the coming 60 years. So that's how it was felt in Washington as well as in Seoul and then last year when President Park came then we in fact concluded the President Park's visit through something called joint declaration and joint declaration was a document in order to do it. That is to say review and renew the 60-year-old relationship between Korea and the United States. This time President Obama came to visit Korea after one year and then of course we wanted to see what has been done over the past one year in order to further develop the relationship between Korea and the United States and then I have to tell you this I think would be a very good time to be doing it. That is to say to lay the ground for another 60 years of relationship between Korea and the United States. Why? Because last year it was the first year of President Park's five-year presidency. Last year it was also the first year of the second term of President Obama which means we have four or five years down the road through which the two presidents can do that together. That is to say lay a groundwork for renewing the relationship between Korea and the United States for coming 60 years. So that was the first objective we wanted to achieve. Second objective that was to deter the North Korean provocations and to encourage North Korea to come forward for more constructive relationship with South Korea with the United States and other countries of the international community. So that objective would be straightforward so I'm not going to elaborate it. And then there was a third objective and then the third objective was to build an architecture for peace and cooperation in Northeast Asia. And what do I mean by that? If you observe international relations in Northeast Asia these days then there would be a couple of very conspicuous observations you would make which is for the past 60 years every and each country in Northeast Asia they developed the economy in a very impressive manner. At the same time the relations between and among those countries got deeper and wider but somehow the deepening economic relationship somehow they did not spill over to other aspect of relationship among countries in Northeast Asia. Well in fact it was just the other way around. That is to say while on the one hand economic relations were getting deeper and wider on the other hand relationship in other fields somehow they were getting well more negative. So that's the phenomenon which was called by my president as Asia paradox. So it's a paradox in the sense that on the one hand economic relations are getting tighter all the time but on the other hand political and then other relationship it is getting more tense. So that's what my president has been calling as Asia paradox and what can we do in order to improve the situation. And that's the reason why my president came out with a proposal of dialogue for peace and cooperation in Northeast Asia and he thought President Obama's trip in fact it can have very positive impact in order to advance this idea of building architecture to strengthen peace and cooperation in Northeast Asia. So that was the third objective. What was the fourth objective? The fourth objective was in order to reaffirm our commitment to what I would call rule-based global order. And then of course this fourth objective again is rather straightforward so I wouldn't elaborate it. So these were the four objectives that we tried to pursue through President Obama's trip to Korea this time. So that is the first part of my introductory remarks. Let me move on to my second part which is how in my view those four different objectives were met. With respect to the first objective that is to say review and renew the six-year relationship between Korea and the United States, the six-year alliance relationship, I think I can refer you to a document which you can find on the website of the White House and that document is called as joint fact sheet, six-year alliance between Korea and the United States or global partnership. That is the name of the document, joint fact sheet. And then it's a six-page document. So maybe not all of you would find time to go through them. So let me try to highlight some of them, some of the points we find in the joint fact sheet. So I will try to do it in three different areas. The first area would be political military issues between Korea and the United States. And then for that of course the most important issue would be how to further strengthen combined military capabilities between Korea and the United States. And then for that, since President Park's trip to Washington in May last year, then many important progress has been made. For example, in order to deal with the stress arising from weapons and mass destruction coming from North Korea, then of course there was something called tailored deterrent strategy. It was adopted in the past one year. And then in order to better deal with the conventional threat arising from North Korea, we came up with counter-contingency plan between Korea and the United States. And on top of all of them, what we did this time was we agreed in order to reconsider the transfer of OpCon, that is to say one-time operational control from United States to Korea. So the conditions and the timing of OpCon transfer is to be reconsidered. So that I think is an important progress which has been made for the past one year as well as through President Obama's trip to Korea this time. Another important progress which I can bring to your attention would be there was an address which President Park made when she was coming to visit Dresden, Germany and there she came up with her vision of unified Korea and this time when President Obama came to visit Korea he in fact provided very warm support, firm support for this vision, President Park's vision for unification of Korea expressed through Dresden speech. So these in my view are important points and highlights of progress which has been made in political military area. So moving on to the second area which is economic area, then of course the presidents discussed about how Korea-U.S. FTA has been implemented for the past one year, for the past two years and then both of them expressed satisfaction about how well the agreement is working for the benefit of both of our economies after two years and at the same time President Obama he in fact was very well briefed about how this coral safety is working so he said well there are couple of issues we came across in the implementation of FTA and then there are rules of origin market access in automotive sector, transfer of financial data and export of organic products. He in fact did not look at the notes he just spoke out from his understanding of those issues and then he said well it was reported to me that we are making a good progress in resolving those issues and then I'm very encouraged about it but at the same time we will have to continue to work hard in order to see to it that there would be even full implementation of Korea-U.S. FTA and then the two presidents also exchanged views and then welcomed Korea's intention to participate in TPP and at the same time in the same area that is to say same area of economic cooperation then the two presidents exchanged a lot of ideas about how we could further strengthen our cooperation in order to find new sources for growth for our respective economies and then for that of course there will be many things we could be doing together in terms of joint research in terms of developing new models of business in encouraging say business start-ups in each of our economies and then they expressed those views or had consultations in various different areas like renewable energy or ICT or biotechnology so we came to find that both of them were extremely interested in the idea of further promoting cooperation in order to provide new sources for growth for both economies in Korea as well as in the United States so that's the second area where the two presidents had close consultation and third area is the area I would call an effort to address global problems around the world global issues around the world and then with respect to that then well I guess there were two different sets of issues the two presidents addressed one was issues we face in various different areas of the world like in Iran or in Syria or in Afghanistan so all in all the two presidents appreciated the joint efforts we are making in order to improve situation in those countries around the world but at the same time there were a large number of issues which I would call thematic issues which the two presidents thematic issues in the area of global cooperation which the two presidents addressed together and then that I guess I better leave until I come up to this fourth objective I told you about that is to say our joint efforts in order to address global issues so they are the kind of three different sets of issues the two presidents addressed and then what you find and joint fact sheet in order to address the first objective I told you about which is to review and renew the 60 year partnership or alliance between Korea and the United States the second objective I told you about it was about to deter the provocation coming from North Korea and then to encourage North Korea to come forward for more constructive engagement with South Korea and then for that purpose then as you can guess then of course many of the things I told you about many of the things which we find in the joint fact sheet then of course they in fact would go in the direction of doing that that is to say deter North Korea as well as encourage North Korea to come forward for more constructive engagement but at the same time on top of that we thought the President Obama's trip to Korea this time it was a very good timing why because in the recent past as many of you would have observed the kind of verbal threats, verbal provocation coming from North Korea was particularly noisy so for that reason I thought it was a very well-timed visit and maybe we could and then there was something the President's support of a country state which they have not done before which is they came to visit combined forces command headquarters at the same time this is something they have never done since combined forces command was established back in 1978 so again that in fact was a very timely gesture in my mind as we have to deal with this particularly ferocious verbal provocations coming from North Korea this time so that was how in my mind the second objective was met with respect to the third objective which is to say to build architecture to strengthen peace and cooperation in Northeast Asia what I guess there are several problems which must be addressed in order to do it and then the problems to be addressed would include the nuclearization of North Korea is one and second, fair and honest recognition of history as we understand it that would be another big challenge that must be addressed if we could go and build architecture to strengthen peace and cooperation in Northeast Asia and I think it was done this time and then many of you would have heard what President Obama said in the joint press conference and then I'm quoting him word by word he said well between Korea and Japan the future is important but at the same time in order to do it there must be honest and fair recognition of the past I'm quoting him word by word honest and fair recognition of the past it's something that must be done so that Korea and Japan and at the same time United States could move forward into the future so I was of course at the press conference and then I was very very encouraged to hear President Obama say that that in fact is something we must see in our part of the world and then that is the reason why I was very positively encouraged to hear President Obama so that's with respect to the third objective and then let me come finally to the fourth objective that is to say the global partnership between Korea and the United States and then what was the discussion the two presidents made this time well there are so many things they discussed with respect to how we could further strengthen partnership between Korea and the United States in order to address many of the challenges we face in the international community and then one of them would be new forms of threat, security threat whether you call it nuclear security or whether you call it cyber security or whether you call it global health security they are the new forms of threat to peace and security around the world and then somehow Korea has been cooperating very very closely with the United States in meeting those new threats to security for example when it comes to nuclear security then the first summit meeting for nuclear security it was convened by President Obama in 2010 second meeting was held in Korea in 2012 so that's a good example and when it comes to cyber security then the first meeting was held in London in 2011 second meeting was held in Hungary, Budapest in 2012 and third meeting was held in Seoul in 2013 so it is another very good example of very close cooperation between Korea and the United States when it comes to global health security it was launched sometime in January this year and then it was one morning when federal government was closed because of snow and then I was invited to that ceremony to launch global health security initiative at the Department of HHS Health and Human Security Services that morning it was very bad the snow in my garden it was I think way more than one feet I couldn't even have my own gate open so I called my assistant and I said well this I'm sure is a very important meeting but I don't think I can make it why because I couldn't even have my own gate open so my assistant gave a call to Department of Defense because it was jointly organized between HHS and the DOD and then said sorry my ambassador cannot make it do you know what happened? DOD they sent me four by four so that they would fetch me from my residence to the Department of Homeland Security and I came there and I met with one of the organizers and I asked him did you really have to do it you could have done it without me and that was the response well we couldn't do without you why? because of very close cooperation we are having in addressing the new threats to health global health security around the world so I'm learning about all of them in the sense that well it was at that meeting that I came to find that when you say new threats to health around the world they were talking about well not only the threat to health around the world arising from natural causes but those coming from accidents but at the same time accept terrorism in that health sector so that's another good example and then all of these made important subjects for discussion between President Park and President Obama as they discussed how we could continue to strengthen our cooperation in order to address challenges in the global community and then new sources of security threat of course was not the only subject they discussed they discussed about climate change they discussed about development assistance and then well I could go on to talk with you about all those detailed discussions that two presidents had on the occasion of President Obama's trip to Korea this time but let me stop here and then let me just stop by telling you sharing with you the last sentence which has been said by President Obama as we wrapped up the discussion between my president and President Obama he said well let's just think about all those issues we have discussed today I wonder if there will be too many countries between United States and other countries where we could be having discussion detailed discussion on such wide ranging issues so that's how President Obama wrapped up his discussion and I think I said myself maybe I could be sharing this last sentence by President Obama because I think it wraps up very well where we stand between Korea and the United States after 60 years and then as we begin new 60 years of relationship in the days to come so thank you Thank you very much I think picking up Mr. Ambassador on your last point I couldn't agree with you more I remember when we used to prepare briefing papers for the summits with Korea you know you'd get about at most half a page per issue but I remember the briefing papers got longer and longer because there were more and more issues not just North Korea and trade for example but regional and global issues that really sort of exemplify how much the scope of the alliance really has expanded over the last 60 years it's quite unique I think in the history of alliances and certainly in the history of post-Cold War alliances to see this sort of broadening scope of the US-Korea relationship So Victor, the half page it was during the time you used to look at the NSC Well there was always a page for North Korea they got a whole page but then usually at most half a page for each issue but as the summits moved on after 8 years the papers got longer and longer just because there were so many more issues whether you were talking about climate change or nuclear security or nuclear energy or especially development assistance and now global health I think one of the reasons why they sent the 4x4 is because they see Korea as a very important partner in the future in terms of global health security given all that Korea has done on the development assistance side as a member of the DAC and I think there's an understanding that Korea once they put their mind to a particular issue then they move very quickly and this is one I think there's a lot of convergence between the United States and Korea if I could there are a couple of questions I wanted to ask you before we open it up to this very knowledgeable audience here the first you'll have to indulge me for a second but the first is a very simple question but it's one I think that a lot of people would like to ask and that is so what's the personal rapport between these two leaders what's the chemistry like it's probably the most underestimated factor in foreign policy is the personal friendship and relationship between the two leaders one gets a sense from the television that they seem to get along quite well but your own view on what the personal relationship is like between these two leaders I totally agree with Victor when he says that this personal relationship between leaders that in fact is a very important factor in managing any relationship and I presented my credentials to President Obama last year in July and one of the things I told President Obama at the time was this which is that there is a picture some of you do remember there was in May last year President Park came to visit Washington D.C and then they met in the over office and then there was a picture taken between 12 them and then if you go into the over office then there is a fireplace picture of President Park and President Obama sitting in the chairs looking at each other looking very intently at each other and then in that particular picture then it is my president making a point and then President Obama looking very intensely upon my president with well the expression on his face which is thoughtful smiling understanding and auto-tension I did attention to what my president is speaking to her speaking to him and I liked that picture very much personally so I came in to meet with President Obama and I said well President Obama one thing I should be telling you is you are very popular in my country but there was this picture which was carried in almost all Korean newspapers and then because of it your popularity went up by several monogies that's what I told President Obama and in May last year I was not in town so I could watch it on the picture but this time I could watch them at very close range and I can tell you Victor in the sense that that in fact is a very truly reflection of very good very warm rapport they are having between the two and then that's what I feel but at the same time next morning on October 26th I met with Evan Medeiros as well as Daniel Russell and then they confirmed that that's exactly that was their observation as well the meeting went very very well and then maybe because of many things because of good rapport and I think one of the reasons why they are having such good rapport is the approach they have to issues they in fact are very committed to what they are doing read all the brief and they in fact well in a sense put their ideas in order before they speak and then I think they are the kind of qualities they share as a leader and then that may be one of the reasons why they find it enjoyable to be talking to each other as you said it was an difficult time for the Korean people and the country when President Obama I mean I was actually there that same week and the country was the whole nation was obsessed and depressed by what had happened with the ferry so it was a very challenging environment to say the least for the president to come into were there elements did they moderate for the words he said were fantastic were there other elements of the trip the visit that were moderated in respect of what happened with the ferry you are right of course when there is a presidential visit and then of course there are several advanced teams which come and visit the country to be visited by the president of the United States of America and there were several advanced teams which came to visit Korea this time and I went through the programs being prepared by the advanced teams and I said to myself well maybe this is a very good program but at the same time we must think about the general emotion gripping the Korean society so maybe we should have this general emotion this deep sense of grief be properly reflected upon the program so without going into the details I can tell you the program has been well thought again and again so that it will go well with this deep sense of grief being felt in the Korean society yeah I thought the words he gave at the beginning that was televised around the world were very very good if I could move to a couple of the issues I don't recall it being in the joint fact sheet but one of the issues between the two countries is the 1-2-3 agreement was there any progress made on this issue or did the leaders discuss it at all well the two leaders discussed of course it's a very important issue and then Victor if you read it very closely then there is a section there is a section dealing with the 1-3 agreement and then what it says is that the two presidents expressed views on the 1-3 agreement and then they focused upon three important elements to be addressed through this agreement which is treatment of spent fuels and then sustainable supply of nuclear fuels and then maintaining or promoting the competitiveness of Korean nuclear industry so they had the three elements to be addressed through this this agreement through this amended agreement okay and then the other thing I wanted to ask you about was about a week and this is on the economic side about a week before the president's trip to Asia the Treasury Department released a report and there was a lot of discussion in that report about currency issues and Korea and I thought pretty strong language actually by the Treasury Department on currency issues was there any discussion of this or what's your view on this or is there a way forward there was a discussion on that but at the same time I think there are a couple of things we should be looking at one of them is the capital market in Korea I mean it is one of the most open capital market we have in Korea and then when you have such an open market open capital market you wonder what you could be doing in order to do something artificial or just exchange rate so that's something we should be thinking about and at the same time the record the Korean currency one has been appreciating appreciating significantly last year as well as this year so it is appreciating significantly so when it comes to concern expressed by the Treasury then of course maybe they have a good reason to say that but there are a couple of things I already told you that must be looked at this I think is different from large number of other emerging economies where they have very close capital market and then where in fact their currencies are depreciating continue to depreciate but it is just other way around when it comes to Korean one it's a very open capital market and at the same time as I've already told you it has been appreciating significantly last year as well as this year and then the last question I wanted to ask you was going back again to the two leaders so they have a continuing dialogue and I'm sure if North Korea accept they will have many more phone calls so as we look forward one of the next sets of opportunities for them to meet I guess UNGA in New York might be one but so what is your mind if how would you like to see your leaders continue their conversation both on the phone and in person in the coming months or even the next year what is a much effect if it could then of course we wish to make meaningful progress with respect to North Korean nuclear issue as well as missile issue at the earliest possible time but at the same time we have 20 years of record behind us and then there is not a record but also a lesson for us so that I think is something which lies as a basis of our approach to North Korea but at the same time you are right in the sense that when the two presidents miss then UNGA will be one opportunity and in November there would be other opportunities as well during which they could be having a meeting if necessary but even before that I very much hope that we'll be able to make the progress and then when we make the progress and then this is something two presidents in fact discussed between the two which is that well we will be very firm in our response to any signs of any measures of provocation coming from North Korea and then we'll be very firm in conducting our say consultation with North Korea when it comes to nuclear issues but at the same time when North Korea is ready to come forward and then engage in more constructive exchanges with us then of course we will be ready to welcome them so we hope we'll be able to see those positive moves in the days to come I think I saw somewhere maybe it was in the joint fact sheet or someplace else was that President Obama's trip to Korea made this the country he has visited the most of the Northeast Asian countries during his time in office is that the case? Yeah I think that sure is I just checked the record and President Obama came to visit Mexico five times and then Mexico I guess is the only country he visited five times and then Korea he visited four times and then maybe only very limited number of countries which President Obama visited four times So it's fair to say that Korea is his favorite Asian country No doubt about that No doubt about that So again we'd like to open it up to the audience again we want this to be a conversation the other thing I'm told that is we are also live tweeting this event so the online twitter audience may ask us questions too at CSIS Korea chair and the full recording will be available online later today so with that please if you have a question just raise your hand we have microphones please introduce yourself and ask your question Larry I'm Larry Nick from CSIS Mr. Ambassador when you discussed trying to build an architecture for peace and stability in Northeast Asia you mentioned as major problems the North Korean nuclear issue and history issue and those clearly are major problems but it seems to me in terms of this objective there's another major issue now and that is the issue of these maritime disputes that really have come to plague the region between Japan and China South Korea and Japan and even now potentially between China and South Korea was there any discussion between President Park and President Obama of the maritime issues during the summit and is there any consideration being given to opening up a sustained dialogue between our two governments in terms of trying to build some sort of regional or international architecture that could lead to a settlement of these disputes Well, with respect to some of the issues which Mr. Nick just mentioned Well, I think one issue which was discussed was on maritime issues in Southeast Asia and then of course we have been supportive of the idea of COC Code of Conduct in Southeast Asia and then of course freedom of navigation is a very important issue for Korea as well in the sense that Korea is a major trading country and then as a major trading country, freedom of navigation we value, very highly value the freedom of navigation and then when it comes to settling those issues on the basis of rule and on the basis of international law then we are fully supportive of that idea and I think it's the reason why when there was this issue of the 80s extension of the 80s by China in December last year then we thought it's an issue upon which we must take a formal position based upon international rules so that's what we did so these are the kind of examples but what I think is important is where one way we could be dealing with those issues would be to firmly based upon rules firmly based upon international law and at the same time as I already said many of those issues are related with the issues of history so they would have to be honest and fair recognition of history as was suggested by President Obama Scott Snyder Scott Snyder, Council on Foreign Relations you mentioned in your remarks that President Obama gave a strong endorsement of the Dresden Declaration but it also appears that the North Koreans are not so impressed what do you think it is that the North Koreans are failing to understand about the Dresden Declaration and what elicited such a strong rhetorical response from North Korea to the meeting between President Obama and President Park Mr. Snyder there were three elements in the Dresden speech first element was where humanitarian exchange between South and North Korea so what has been suggested by President Park is we are ready to further strengthen humanitarian exchanges between two parts of Korea especially the health of women and then health of children as well as humanitarian exchanges in the form of unification between divided families first element second element is well of course one issue in which North Korea is highly interested in that is the economic development and then we suggested we would be willing to cooperate with North Korea in building infrastructure for the economic development so that is the second element and the third element is integration now the country was divided after World War II and then that so long it takes time then of course they would be higher degree of sense alienation in the two societies so President Park the third element President Park emphasized was the importance of making further efforts to further integrate the two societies so all in all think about them humanitarian exchanges, building infrastructure and then promoting integration between the two societies because well it would be very difficult to object to any of the three so with respect to how North Korea is responding to it we are very discouraged about the response but at the same time as I already said several times we are ready when North Korea is willing to come forward and engage with us in a constructive manner then we will be ready to do that but at the same time for the time being I mean North Korea is not so we are still waiting for that to happen Thank you, next question Dooyeon Thank you Ambassador Dooyeon Kim Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Thank you so much for your remarks it's a bit of an easy question but maybe not so as well simple question but maybe not so depending on how you want to look at it the alliance no matter how strong the relationship is it's normal to encounter some tough patches and low points just as well as high points and we are really at a high right now and some of the tough issues that were inherited or passed on from the previous Lee Obama administration it seems that the Park Obama alliance is tackling those issues very constructively in a positive manner even though they are tough issues but there still remains in particular among a few the one two three is still a challenge that I personally and professionally see as an issue that could come up where the allies might have to have some frank discussions and perhaps struggle with just a little bit just to get to a win-win situation and so against that backdrop I'm curious what you see as potential challenges and issues and leftover homework so to speak where you might see some more frank discussions but of course we're all in it to have good results but some challenges that you might see going forward thank you as a matter of fact you're right in the sense that how close you may be then of course there cannot but be certain issues of differences of views so you absolutely right about that but at the same time I think when you face those challenges I think it will be very important to keep it in such a manner that you in fact wouldn't forget the common objective you have between the two countries so that in addressing those challenges you in fact do not in fact do something which would be undermining this fundamental important relationship between Korea and the United States so that's number one I mean you do it but at the same time you do it it's an important relationship second point I would share with you which is as somebody who spent more than 35 years in the Korean Government Service I'm not very comfortable with the idea of sharing with you what the challenges are my instinct would be to walk out those challenges before I share it with you so well I think it is not because I'm opaque but because of my training for over 35 years but if you raise specific questions which you perceive as a challenge then I'll be very glad to address and then discuss them with you so before I ever know we have a question on Twitter which is do you think North Korea is going to do a fourth nuclear test why and what are you going to do if they do a fourth nuclear test with respect to if it is ready to do it then we have been saying for quite some time now that there are indications that maybe they have done with all the physical preparations physical preparations to be doing another nuclear testing but at the same time with respect to when it is going to do it then of course we should be raising that question with North Korean leaders so that is there and then with respect to why why North Korea is doing it that in fact puzzles me in the sense that well North Korea says all the time that in fact there are two parallel objectives they are pursuing nuclear development weapons and mass destruction programs but at the same time economic development and then we know for a fact that two of them they undermine each other and then well given the economic situation in North Korea any fail minded any reasonably minded leader would in fact try to do something to improve the level of life in North Korea but somehow it is not happening so that is where we are with respect to what we are going to do in terms of as a response if there is fourth nuclear testing then not only Korea but there is the United States some members of the six party talks as well as all members of the international community they are extremely extremely frustrated about what North Korea has been doing for the past 20 years and then it is because of that that we have been taking many measures multilaterally, bilaterally and regionally in order to discourage North Korea to do it and most probably if there is going to be the fourth nuclear testing then I think North Korea would have to face all these well measures of sanction being further strengthened bilaterally, regionally as well as multilaterally so for that reason we very much hope we urge North Korea not to do it it does not serve the interests of anybody including interests of North Korea Errol McDevitt question Michael McDevitt from Center for Naval Analysis thank you Mr. Ambassador for your comments I wonder if I could draw you out a little bit on the issue of OPCON transfer I think you said that it was going to be the conditions for transfer are being reconsidered does that mean that you are focusing on or we are focusing on a condition based assessment in other words when certain conditions are met then the transfer will take place and we are thinking about setting a new date 2016 or 2017 or whatever so is it condition based or working toward another date specific well Admiral McDevitt as I said that is what we find in the joint fact sheet and then what the joint fact sheet is timing and then the condition can be reconsidered and then you are right in the sense that it will be condition based if we are going to come up with a new timing well as a matter of fact we are in the process of working out the conditions as well as the timing so I do not think I'm ready to address that question so for the time being let us just leave it where it is there is to say there was an agreement between two presidents the timing and the conditions can be reconsidered we had a number of questions yes right here hello Alexander Sullivan Alexander Sullivan from the Center for New American Security thank you once again Mr. Investor in Kyoto news recently there was some discussion of Chinese contingency planning for sort of North Korean contingency and what their role might be and at the same time you know over the past year or two we have seen I would argue a general warming of relations between China and the Republic of Korea I'm not one to view you know everything in Asia through the lens of China but I wonder if there was any discussion between President Obama and President Park about what China's role is expected to be on the Korean Peninsula in the coming years couple of weeks couple of minutes ago then we were talking about all those sanctions that international community is imposing in response to WMD program in North Korea and what is the international community trying to achieve through those sanctions it is to control the flow of technology flow of capital and the flow of materials flowing into North Korea and then bulk up them coming into North Korea through China so I think whether it is a sanction being done bilaterally or regionally or multilaterally then I think very important to get the cooperation and support of China that's obvious so that in fact is one of the very important discussions we are having between Korea and the United States but at the same time very important discussion which is taking place between United States and China as well so the way I look upon it is a kind of well if I look upon six party talks I always look upon it as a kind of concentric circle in the sense that at the very center of the concentric circle then of course we have Korea, we have United States as we fan out in this concentric circle then what we should try to do is to let them I mean other participants in the six party talks to get as close as possible to the center of the concentric circles so that we could be dealing with North Korea with hopefully a unified voice so in that process of course the position being taken by China would be extremely important to you do you think to what extent is Korea worried about the U.S. pivot you know there's a lot of we just had a conference here last week about the transatlantic pivot to Asia and you know many Europe are concerned the U.S. is pivoting to Asia but I guess to get the sense off in Asia they're worried that the U.S. isn't pivoting enough what is Korea this to what extent is Korea concerned about the pivot and then the extent to which the pivot is mutually consonant with South Korea's desire for a deeper strategic engagement with China where pivot to Asia when it was announced in 2011 I used to be ambassador to European Union so I was in Brussels but at the time I remember many European ambassadors coming to ask me what I thought about this pivot to Asia and then what I answered there was it used to be my standard answer to my European colleagues which was we're looking upon European relations with Asia and U.S. relations with Asia there is so much going on between United States and East Asia that in fact in my mind they are not getting back they have always been there United States has always been there and then it is my true assessment of U.S. presence in Northeast Asia as well as broadly in Asia Pacific and I think the record shows the U.S. presence in East Asia it has been a very stabilizing influence and then it has been a very important element contributing to peace and security and prosperity in that part of the world so we are encouraged about it and then this trip President Obama has recently made to East Asia I think in a sense it was reaffirmation of U.S. presence in Asia as well as U.S. rebellions to Asia so apart from what specific measures are being taken in order to implement U.S. rebellions to Asia then of course we hope to see more of it to be done but in general we are extremely encouraged about this policy which is commonly understood as the Rebellion Station but does that put any pressure on your China policy does that interfere at all with your China policy or do you see these as a non-zero sum game you said it in the right manner in the sense that this is not a zero sum game as we see we are all in it together and I think there is a common interest when I say common interest more prosperity, cooperation more prosperity then I think everybody will benefit from it Korea will benefit from it United States, Japan, China so I think it must be it must be a positive sum game and then we must work among all the actors in our part of the world to make sure that it will turn out to be a positive sum game you had a question Sung-jin Kim of CSIS visiting fellow excuse me what is the common evaluation of North Korean Kim Jong-un regime during the summit of the two leaders in addition and during the first term of Obama administration its North Korean policy was that kind of strategic patience and at this meeting did President Obama totally endorse President Bach's vision of the Western declaration and is there any indication of US palace change of North Korea well I think we have we have already discussed several times today why we have that policy of the United States and then why we have our policy of South Korea's toward North Korea so I think given our experience for the past 20 years especially what we went through when we had the Geneva framework agreement of 1994 and then when we had 2007 February package of 2007 as well as something we went through in 2012 then broadly speaking there was there was a broad spread frustration with respect to the record of implementation on the part of North Korea and I think it provides a basis upon which we should be developing our strategy toward North Korea so something we learned over the past 20 years and then as I already said several times then I think it should be a two-track approach with respect to North Korea when it comes to all different kinds of provocations we will have to stand very, very far in South Korea as well as between South Korea and the United States but we very much hope and then we encourage North Korea to come forward to begin constructive relationship with us so that there was a broad confirmation or affirmation of this approach to North Korea through the recent visit of President Obama to Korea Dan Bob thank you Mr. Ambassador I'm Dan Bob with Sasaka Peace Foundation USA Japan is moving toward reinterpretation of its constitution to allow collective self-defense of some sort it may be rather constrained this is something the US is welcome for some time and I'm wondering if you can tell me what your government's position is on this and how much it's influenced by say the comfort women issue thank you well between Korea and Japan we share so many things we share common interests we share common values and then we share strategic interests and then what I think about all these discussions taking place in Japan these days with respect to further strengthening Japanese defense capabilities what I think is this which is counterfactual situation by counterfactual situation what I mean is we in fact I mean in our group in fact we have been discussing about all those historical issues lying between Korea and Japan and then counterfactual situation I think about is what if all these statements what if all these actions which in fact agitated public opinion back in Korea for the past one year what if those actions those statements had not been made for the past one year it could have been different but at the same time I think all these discussions it must be done in reflection of this historical baggage lying behind Korea and Japan and that is the reason why these statements which have been made by some of the Japanese politicians before as I repeat Murayama statement and Kono statement those statements as well as vision of some of Japanese leaders to in fact I'm quoting our President Obama's expression once again honest and fair recognition of history in fact those statements Murayama statement and Kono statement they in fact were in fact very careful efforts that was made by Japanese politicians and Japanese people in the broader sense in order to do it that is to say recognize history in honest and fair manner and then somehow that has been going backwards for the past one year so that is the reason why we hope this historical issue would put on the right track and then move forward so that all relations between Korea and Japan could move in the future directed manner and then that as I already told you is the reason why I was very encouraged with this statement coming from President Obama with respect to the future between Korea and Japan being so important but at the same time in order to do it why it is important for Japan Japan to come up with understandable recognition of this past history we have time for one more question yes hello Frank Aaron from BGR group Mr. Ambassador nice to have time with you today my question is somewhat related to that it has to do with the Dokdo in the east sea of Korea what efforts is the government here in the embassy the mission here doing to really win the argument here in the United States that Dokdo belongs to Korea I know there is a textbook controversy recently in the Virginia legislature that touched on this matter if you could talk about that a little bit I'd be appreciative well when it comes to Dokdo then of course I don't think any one of you have been to Dokdo but there is an island called Ulleungdo which lies to the north of Dokdo and from Ulleungdo if you look south on a fine day you can have the glimpse of Dokdo on a fine day let me mind you on a gloomy day on a fine day you can have a physical view of Dokdo with bare eyes you don't need a binocular you can have a view of Dokdo from Ulleungdo so there is the nearest island a habitat island from Dokdo to the north of Dokdo where is the nearest island from Japan that's Island Okie and then Island Okie the physical distance between Island and Dokdo it is at the very least two times longer than the distance between Ulleungdo and Dokdo that's why we say geographically that's the reality historically for that reason there are many historical records which in fact mention about this phenomenon that is to say if you go through the historical records they say well from Ulleungdo on a fine day there is an island that you can see the reason why I emphasize on a fine day is because between Dokdo and Ulleungdo there are other islands which can be seen even on an overcast day but Dokdo is the only island you can see without binocular on a fine day so that's the reason why I say historically there is no question at all why it is Korea's so it is our position on Dokdo geographically as well as legally it is Korea's territory and then if you come into the website of the Korean Embassy then of course you can read all of that and then thank you so much for your question because this time I can tell you loud and clearly why Dokdo is Korea's territory but at the same time I think I better stop there well Mr. Ambassador I mean the fact that the President has been to Korea almost as many times as he's been to Mexico shows I think that Korea has not considered a distant ally but a very close and intimate neighbor of the United States so I want to thank you very much for joining us today and giving us your views on the summit and the relationship going forward thank you again well thank you Victor thank you so much for having this opportunity for me to address these friends of Korea very knowledgeable friends of Korea very knowledgeable thank you


Welcome to Think Tech Hawaii's program. Don't just age, engage. I'm your host, Larry Grimm. And I'm delighted to have you here as we explore the important dimensions of aging, aging and becoming an extraordinary, and having an extraordinary, elderhood in our lives. I was rocked by this decision by the Supreme Court this past week or two weeks to take an assault on the Roe v. Wade law, law of the land, which we have practiced over the past decades. And I am just wondering what's going on? What in the world is happening? And I have asked a good friend of mine and also a very strong active community activist in Kailua, Marion Heidel, to come join me on this program today to look at the role of elders in social justice and seeking justice in our society. And she is consented to do that with me. And hello, Marion, welcome to our program. Well, thank you so much. I'm glad to try to do this. Your effort is well received and well appreciated. So I'd like the viewers to kind of get a chance to know you're a pretty remarkable woman, but I don't expect you to talk about how remarkable you are. But I would like to ask you to share a little bit about your past. Now you have come to be such a strong activist in community and social justice affair. Well, just a little bit of background on me. I was born in Ningpo in East China in 1936. So that makes me 86 years old. Most people think I'm in my sixties or seventies. My father was a medical missionary and we left China in 1948 and I grew up in California and Washington state. I met and married my husband, John Heidel, while he was studying for the ministry in 1962. And we moved that year to Hawaii where he had an internship at Central Union Church as youth minister. Later after finishing seminary, he became chaplain at Punahou School. I had trained to be a medical technologist and worked at that for 10 years. And later as secretary for the student exchange programs at Punahou that were under the Woh International Center. In Hawaii, my social justice involvement has been first in the League of Women Voters and I participated in Martin Luther King Day parades. And then in Family Promise, more recently, 2006, I think it began a program for transitional housing for families and it operated first through the coalition of the Windward churches and then expanded to Honolulu churches. And I was kind of the head of that in my church, Christchurch Uniting. And then finally, our church also was one of the first churches to join in the work of faith action for community equity, faith action for short. And it operates on the principle beginning with the folks in the churches and what they feel is the situation in the community that needs to be changed or fixed. And from there, you go on to generally have to go to the government and make some changes through them. For instance, the first thing, oh, okay, go ahead. No, thanks, Mary. That is a really good overview. And I'd like to highlight that the motivation that you have for being involved has been from a deeply rooted in your past and in your faith experience, it seems to me. Talk about your motivation just a little bit. Part of what I do in this program is present to the viewers wonderful examples and models of extraordinary elderhood. And I consider you to be an extraordinary elder. And I wondered if you just share a little bit more about how you're motivated to fall through your life to be involved in these issues. Well, I don't feel, for one thing, I don't feel my age physically, but I also emotionally and because I feel like it's my responsibility. We in Christianity are supposed to be helping to create the quote, kingdom of God here on earth. At least that's what I believe. And so for me, that means joining to work with others on social issues that are unjust. And for those who are poor, hungry, houseless, those in prison and those who lack opportunity and also taking care of our planet. And so I just feel like that's a responsibility I have, both personally and I'm sure because of my feeling like this is what God wants me to be doing. Well, that sure takes you out of any kind of comfort zone, I would think, and helps you engage, moves you to engage the powers that be. It can at least and to do so in a loving and caring way with for others. And I couldn't help but think as you were talking about speaking the kingdom of God and bringing it about here on earth, how some evangelicals will say the same thing basically as their motivation, but there would be a very different agenda. And I'm very, very concerned about that we come to this building, kingdom building in the world with such totally different agendas, but with an idea, the same basic motivation. Have you ever given some thought to that? This was kind of a complex question. Oh my. Well, I don't like to say what all evangelicals do or think, I mean, I know I probably have my own mistaken ideas, but I think that we do need to work through our communities and the people in them and in government and the city and various groups that we need to work through them to change the things that are generally have caused problems. It puts a challenge to the church, the church universal, that if we could get together and talk over some of these separate things that separate us, we might have some interesting approaches to collaborating in the future. But so, Mary, and you've been involved through Christ Church uniting disciples and Presbyterians, Kailua, you've been involved in faith, the faith action for community equity what have been some of the most fulfilling engagements that you've done that you feel personal investment that you feel like you've really accomplished something important? Well, I think the idea of how they started where they start at the ground level where the people are and they find out what is bothering them in the community. And so, for instance, the first things they did was the people, the churches who were over in on the other side of the hill from Kailua, Kalihi in that area, they didn't have any bus stops with covers over them. So they had to sit in the rain or wait in the rain. And so that was one of the first things that they thought about needed to be done and they got it done. The city built some bus stops that were covered in areas where a lot of people have to wait for the bus. Another thing that they did was oh, in the same kind of area, I guess, in Kalihi area of Honolulu was they needed, they had a lot of crime going on. And so they just needed to have, they thought a few more policemen present to watch out for it. And so they talked to the, I guess to the police department and made that happen. And so you're saying this is some of the action of FACE, a base? Right, well, that stands for Faith Action for Community Equity. And we're trying to make things fairer for everybody and lift the level. And so now, what the important things are, that they have a housing committee that's working on housing for houseless, houseless, excuse me, and for low income and affordable housing up through the median, Erika income. There's a committee on environment, taking care of the environment. And there's a committee that's working on social justice for the criminals. And they've been really strong on putting forth the cash bail law. Which may have some things to be tweaked, but in all that area, those areas particularly, oh, well in long-term care, they've worked on that since the beginning actually. So I've been on the steering committee and primarily my role has, if I can't come up with good solutions for things, is at least to get the word out to my church folks. And so that's what they like about me right now, I guess. They would probably like me to be more active on a committee, but they have me to send the word to the people in my church to see if we can get more involved. And you're excellent at that. You do such a good job of recruiting and engaging people. I'm curious about this, Marion, because I'm interested in elders and providing extraordinary elderhood for people. How would you say this is, your approach to justice has changed over the years and how is it different, particularly, how is it different now in your elderhood years as it was from your adulthood years, say in your 40s or 50s? What has happened in you that's different and that comes into the, that you bring to the table now? Well, like I said, I started with your legal women voters because I admired some older people who were doing things like putting out a booklet on the candidates, you know, so all the candidates that were running for something. So you'd know something about who were doing that. Well, and so I suppose what I was actively doing more then than I am now is being on a committee that, because the league always studies something before they make any pronouncements or promote anything. And so I think I was, one of the ones I was on had to do with the nuclear weapons and stuff like that. And so I did more studying at that time and I probably did more marching and demonstrations and raids then than I do now, although I still go out sometimes. But, and then as far as family promise and fake action goes, I've probably, you know, I'm not, well, family promise has changed so that there isn't much I can do right now, but at the time I was one of two people who were coordinators of my church and kind of, you know, recruited the people to do the meals and to stay overnight with the families and stayed in our church, that kind of thing. I wasn't, yeah. And for fake action, I'm not sitting on any committee now, but I'm still, you know, and the other thing is, I don't do it enough, but is writing testimony, you know, on a law, which is something older people can do now as long as they feel like they have their wits about them can call, they can write letters, they don't have to go online, but a lot of elders are learning to go online and can easily send, you know, their program or com. I noticed when you talked about the women's, League of Women Voters. League of Women Voters, that you mentioned that there were some older people that put together this booklet and that sort of inspired you. You're in that position now. You are the one who inspires and you are the one who, you are one among many who are able to say to envision, set a vision out for younger people. Do you feel that? Do you feel that operating with you and some other elders in your group and your circle of influence? Well, you know, I don't know whether I have done anything to do with it, you know, other than being present, but as far as faith action goes, if you notice now, the staff and all are much younger people and the people who are on the committees are younger people. And I don't know how many of them are actually members of some church, but like faith action started with church groups. Now we have other young people that may not necessarily be in the church, but in the community, but who have come in to operate faith action. I saw a cartoon on Facebook that I really liked. It was a cartoon of a 30-something woman standing in front of a perfume salesperson and saying, for Mother's Day, what my mother wants is that her activism of long ago is not worth nothing. And I thought, you know, that's so true. I felt the same way when, again, when the Litos writing and the assault on Roe v. Wade started, has come out by the Supreme Court, been leaked out. I thought, has all of our work been for nothing? I was president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in Colorado for three years. And we worked very hard with Planned Parenthood to gather leaders of faith communities together to learn, to advocate, to bear testimony to a society in which women, productive rights, rights for productive health care were protected. And those are rights already given in my mind that don't come from any constitution. So that really grabbed me because I thought, sometimes I have that sense of, what is this world coming to? All the efforts we've made with nuclear disarmament, all the efforts we've made to speak on behalf of nonviolent resistance on change, all the efforts to social, a society that is just, not only in America, but throughout the world, a global society, all of that feels as though it's suddenly slipped away. What's happened to, I have another friend who said he was naive, thought the Supreme Court was impartial and not political. And now he sees that that's not at all true. Are you feeling some frustrations like that? Yes, although, you know, we watched a couple of things on the American experience just recently. One was on the, it was called Stonewall and it was about the LGBT explosion they had. Yeah, I mean a demonstration that they had years ago in New York. And then recently we just watched the one about the Chinese Exclusion Act. Well, I think we've grown a lot beyond that. And so it, you know, people say that we'll, because you're older, you have a lot of wisdom. Well, I wouldn't say that we have wisdom that and the young people don't. But I do hope we are, we do have memories of what things were before. And I see things in a lot of the ways changing for the better. Although we still have, you know, another crowd of people in the States who don't believe the way or act the way I would, you know, would want them to. But I think older people, well, younger people can see new ways of enacting change and not doing things just the way we used to. And so they need our support. But many of us over the years have developed morals and ethics and devotion to efforts that improve the community. So we can be mentors and examples of what humans can be and what institutions should change. And like I say, you know, even if you have to stay home, you can influence that by kind of testimony you send. Okay, here's a question that would have come from a viewer. Must say this question comes from an elder person like yourself who is not involved. And it says, must I have a solution before I confront social problems that are upsetting me? Oh, I don't, no, I don't think that's the case at all. I, if you get involved in the question and seek out the people who are dealing with it and they are both elders and young people, then you know, you will, one thing, you'll educate yourself. You'll learn of other possibilities and you'll see that you're building a group of people that can work on that and try to make some change. So I think, no, I don't think you have to have a solution. I think you just need to have a willingness to learn and to think about it and maybe bring up your objections or the things you don't think will work and see the possibilities that other folks come up with. Excellent, and I'm blocking on her name, but the anthropologist, a great anthropologist who was in China, who said, never doubt that a small group of common, of people sharing a common view or a common idea can change the world. It's the only thing that has Margaret Mead said that. Margaret Mead, yeah. One of my favorite reminders that when people of, excuse me, common ideas get together, they do start to change the world and it doesn't have to be 100% of the population that agrees. Actually change begins to occur with 5% of agreement and then 20% of agreement kind of solidifies things, actually in terms of social change. So it's very much a group process that you're touting here and saying that we can become involved in. So would you say it? You still feel as though you're getting out of your comfort zone or have you settled into an ice comfort zone that you can just watch from the fringe? I don't think I'll ever be comfortable watching from the fringe, I'll feel guilty and that's not comfortable. I guess you can see that's not comfortable, but I do, I think I don't feel real comfortable having to speak up and give solutions and things like that. It's even difficult for me to talk to you like this because I don't talk off the cuff very well. But I certainly, and it's difficult for me to talk to people who have an opposite view from me and especially if they sound very negative about things. And if they, well, I'll be very frank, it's really difficult to talk to people who think Trump is wonderful and they come at you with all these facts that they say are facts, but I don't think they're facts, and I don't know quite how to talk back. But so that's a comfort zone that I don't have. Yeah, I think you're absolutely on target with many of us who, and we do, all of us go into our own echo chambers with each other, but one of the challenges, as I said, as we started this conversation about the church universal, how do we engage within the body of Christ or within the church or within faith communities universal when we have faith, people have drawn a faith conviction to pursue something different. And certainly in the advocacy for Trump and his white nationalism is not something I wanna pursue and we'll not do that with anybody, but we've got to do some kind of dialogue around these issues within the church itself. It seems to me that is a big challenge. Yeah. I think the church, the only way they can handle it is be good if they have a pastor that fosters sharing doubts and interaction and so forth. But also people within the congregation can kind of try to have a presence that says, I wanna hear your point of view. I wanna try to understand that as well as express my point of view and see where we can find some comment down. Yes. Diversity is- That goes for theology as well as social justice issues. I think you're absolutely right. Learning to talk to people who are so adamant about something that is very difficult and but I think we have to try. Good point, very good point. And that goes for both sides because someone who differs with me in terms of the vision of the outcome would feel as though I have the same sort of erroneous ideas and approach. So yeah, we do, it really takes a lot of help and effort I think to be guided into a dialogue like that. Marion, thank you so much. Is there one last word you wanna give to an elder out there who's listening to us who wants to get involved and not sure how to do it, who has a passion but not sure what to do with that passion? Well, just let it be known to someone, you know, because they can probably also point you to other people that you can talk to. But I think I hope that people will still feel still feel like that their ideas are good, that their morals and ethics are something to share and that what they say and do makes a difference. Like I said, when I was younger, I really admired these older people that were involved in social justice issues and politics and voting and all that sort of thing and it made a difference to me. And it's why you're here on this program. Marion, thank you so very, very much. And again, I do admire you and your abilities and your selflessness in this pursuit and the faith from which you are motivated to see the realm and come to being on earth. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Don't just age and gage. Don't just age and gage is on, I think, Hawaii every two weeks, Tuesday at two o'clock, Hawaii time, come back in two weeks and join me again.  Give 25 bucks or give a hundred dollars or maybe the thousand that you've got over there in your pantry waiting to be put on some kind of good, strong community action concern. I think that Hawaii serves this community in a beautiful way and to bring community thought together it is a community forum and your community, your wellbeing and your practice and your participation in it financially and through listening is very important. Thanks so much. See you in two weeks. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.


10% of all people in power in the world are women, but the rest are boys. How is this inequality possible? There's 3.8 billion women. Therefore, if 90% are boys, that means there's 34 billion boys. We know society doesn't oppress anybody based on gender, so there's no other explanation. 30 billion missing boys? Where are they at a hole on Mars? Right, they're screwing around. They're just like really small, you know? Where are you finding them? Show me, show me the boys! Show me the boys! Tweet at the FBI with hashtag ShowMeTheBoys for more information.


Hello, my name is Captain Calvin Fortune and my name is 1st Sergeant Tara Charles We are the command team for the Marmiception Center here on Fort Stewart, Georgia And we'd like to welcome you to the 3rd Infantry Division Upon your arrival whether you're staying here at Fort Stewart or moving on to Hunter Army Airfield You can expect four days of in-processing which consists of day one Finance where you can settle all travel vouchers and other financial needs Day two SRP will you be medically screened for deployability Day three CIFs where you will receive the gear necessary for your particular unit finally day four You will then be shipped to your unit while you're in processing We ask the following of you be at the right place at the right time in the right uniform and no matter your age There's absolutely no drinking while in processing within the 3rd Infantry Division We look forward to your arrival and please utilize the contact information on our Facebook page Should you have any questions again? Welcome to the 3rd Infantry Division rock of the mar and top of the rock


Hoi Hoi, today we need to talk about something. When I did my last video, I had done a certain amount of investigation as to what was going on with the SCP Wiki with regards to the sudden changes of policy to increase the age requirements on the Wiki and what was going on to cause that, what was made the turnover in the harassment team happen, and I had found enough information that at least a couple people I knew, one I knew pretty well and one I knew not that well, were involved in some pretty shady shit. Now I want to say, whilst making this video, I will not be naming names as much as I think some people would prefer it if I did for two reasons. First of all, naming names myself without actually talking to any victims, and even if I did talk to victims of these predators, which is the only way to describe these people, would still be taking the agency out of the victims hands. So if they want to inform more people of who these people are, they can. But secondly, it's a bit selfish to be honest with you, I do not believe I have enough certainty to what I would consider, let's say a legal certainty. If I were to be taken to court for slander or libel, do I believe that I have enough evidence currently to defend myself against a slander or libel claim by labeling somebody a child predator? And I do not believe that is the case. And even if it was the case, I don't have the money for a lawyer. So we're not going to be naming names. But what we will talk about are events. There have been multiple cases where site members and in some cases staff members have been involving themselves in erotic role play with underaged users. The changes proposed on the site right now are to increase the age limit to 18 over a period of three years to phase it in, and to prevent people from using their status as staff in their profiles on sites who are devoted to not safer work content, like not necessarily content or even interactions, for example. And finally, there's supposed to be a way to handle complaints a little bit better by the SAP Wiki staff. Only really one of those things is about protecting children from potential predators on the SAP Wiki. And that is allowing for a more available anonymous complaints system. Raising the age on the Wiki makes it seem like you're oh, and a splash page. I forgot about that. A splash page for explicit content on the Wiki. Neither that doesn't do anything either. All of these things are not about protecting children, but more about protecting the Wiki from legal or civil liability. That's all of the splash page on top of content where you have to click and say, of course I'm 18 does because it doesn't actually prevent children from accessing the content. Clearly. It's just you doing as little as possible to avoid being sued over it or to be charged criminally for it. And the same thing goes for raising the age on the SAP Wiki because people will just lie. As I said, they're not about protecting children. They're about protecting the Wiki from children. I don't necessarily think that that is a bad thing, to be fair. I think it's just important to make clear what it is. I mean, and don't use your position as staff to get people to interact with you in sexually explicit ways offsite. Rule that they're instituting is just a basic sort of like human decency thing, which it always irritates me when people take things that are supposed to be basic human decency and just like, let's make a rule out of that because we can't trust people. If you really wanted to protect children from sexually explicit content on the SAP Wiki, you would accept, first of all, that no matter what you think should be true, in your brain, you're like, okay, children should not be allowed to access the SAP Wiki. That is my belief. And I don't know if that's my personal belief, but let's say that we're in the mind of that person. Separate that from reality where children will access the site. So when you choose to post sexually explicit content to the SAP Wiki, if you do not understand this, I'm making it clear now. You are choosing to expose children to sexually explicit content, and you can make a decision as to whether or not censorship. There's a censorship issue here. There's a discussion to be had about how to make this work and how to best prevent these problems, but you still have to accept what you're doing regardless of whether or not you think it should or shouldn't be a particular way. And I say this as someone who personally finds that kind of content. To be honest with you, overly gory content and sexually explicit content on the SAP Wiki makes me a 34-year-old dude with gray in his beard uncomfortable, and I don't read it generally. And if I do read it and I hit one of those points, I'm usually going to reach for the downvote button. But there is a audience for it on the SAP Wiki certainly. I'm going to say this because this is super important to both. I'm going to have two messages here. One is to SAP authors and SAP staff members. First of all, obviously, don't use your positions of influence or power to coerce anyone underage or not into, not coerce even, through ignorance even. Allow other people to think that engaging in sexually explicit behavior with you will benefit them. You don't even have to make the offer. You need to be conscious of the way other people view you. And this is ironic because, was it two years ago now, roughly? I got in trouble on the SAP Wiki for advertising too much. One of the people who is named and who I have enough certainty to personally believe was involved in this bullshit told me that I was using my reputation on the Wiki as an author, because that's all I was at the time. Using my reputation on the Wiki as an author to trick people into reading my works. So there is some irony here, which I don't want to get into that kind of stuff. But yeah, I was using my reputation as an author to advertise too much. And that was cause for disciplinary measures. But this gets swept under the rug by the harassment team. It really irritates me. But it's not about me. It's about you and about the audience that we're dealing with here. The audience for SAP content skews younger, okay? There are plenty of adults and hopefully most of them are above the age of 15. But even between the ages of 15 and 18, still a problem, honestly. And yeah, they're fixing that. But even children, people might not appreciate this very much. But when you reach the age of 18, there's still exploitation going on. This is about age too. But outside of that, don't exploit your positions to get sexually explicit behaviors out of somebody else. And if you see it happening, so much could be solved if people could just not do sexual things on the internet. But that is impossible to avoid. Again, I was just talking earlier about how this is how the world is versus how the world should be. So of course, it's gonna happen, right? But I'm telling you, if you're an author or a staff member and you're watching this and you're really irritated that I'm doing something on this because you don't think, because not all staff members are like that, it's not about that. It's not even about being, it's not even about intentionally exploiting people. You can do it without saying anything, without being explicit about it. If you allow people to interact with you in that way, and you have a position of power or authority, you are exploiting them, even if you did not explicitly ask them to do things in return for a favor. Period. That's the whole reason why they're creating a policy not to use your, say that I'm an SCP staff on offsite things that involve sexually explicit, whatever, that's the whole point of that. Because it's not about making the offer. It's about understanding how other people perceive you. But this message is for anyone on the SCP Wiki, especially the underage kids, but anyone. And then I say this because I know from my analytics that the ages range from anywhere from 13 to 13 to 64. So there's a huge wide range of people. But this is critically important. Do not, under any circumstances, use sexual behaviors to get something you want. And if you feel uncomfortable with what someone has asked you to do, regardless of if they have explicitly said, I want you to do this or else I'll use my authority against you, or I want you to do this and I'll use my authority to help you, regardless of if they use the words. If you feel uncomfortable with a situation, talk to an adult that you trust and just have a conversation about how it makes you feel and talk out what you think you should and shouldn't do. And let someone know.  There's no embarrassment to be had over this kind of thing. Everyone is going to either be those ages or has been those ages at some point. And they've been super awkward and not understood how social norms or just generally socializing works. You get to the SCP Wiki. And this is especially true of people in the LGBTQ plus community, because those people, you know, may see the SCP Wiki as a place where they can finally feel accepted, right? And then people will exploit them based on the idea that, you know, these people have let their guard down, because this is finally a place where they can be who they really are. And then they get exploited by other members of their own community or people outside of their community who just can't keep it in their pants. I really do feel like if the SCP Wiki cared enough about preventing this problem, they would accept that a large portion of the viewers of a particular page are unregistered and maybe below the age of 18. So you're still exposing them to content that they should not be exposed to. You can put a warning on it all you want to and go, where are their parents? But the reality of the situation is still the reality of the situation. What you want things to be doesn't change what things are, okay? That's all I'm saying. But anyway, this is very critically important. I am really disappointed. Disappointed is too weak of a word, but it's the only word I can think of right now that's wholly appropriate. I am very disappointed in several members of the community right now. And I don't know if there's any fixing in it, because a lot of this rot, okay, it's important not to be too reactionary too. Like you can get so sure of your own moral righteousness that any behaviors and any any any words you any words are okay to say about somebody because you're sure you're right. Okay. So that's another thing of not naming names. It's very important for you to understand that maybe you're wrong, but like the evidence for some of these people is so overwhelming that you those people just need to leave the community. Like that's your contrition. That's something that a lot of people never get when they apologize for something. They're like, I'm apologizing so I can get back in. You don't do that. If you believe you did something wrong sometimes, if it's serious enough, leave. Volunteer. If you're really sorry, if you really want to make amends, stop exposing other people to you. That's all I'm saying. Leave.  Don't do the things in those communities. Anyway, that's all I really wanted to talk about today. It's been weighing on my mind all weekend. And by the way, I'm healthy enough to be on camera again. I'm not feeling great, but I'm still better. My foot's still swollen up though. Yep, still swelling. I sleep with it elevated and it kind of, I wake up and it's fine. And then it starts to swell up as I'm sitting here.  It's nice to know that I'm not alone out here. And neither are you. I'll see you all again on Thursday.


I certainly do. Well, thanks to state and federal entities, Wyoming anglers have more opportunities to reel in larger fish due to fish stocking efforts. The Wyoming Game and Fish maintains 10 fish hatcheries and rearing stations across the state. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has two national fish hatcheries in Saratoga and Jackson. These help improve the quality of fishing by stocking in waters with struggling fisheries and higher angler numbers. Opportunities are provided in areas that would otherwise be devoid of fish. In addition, native species are restored. Although most of the fish arrive in tanks held by vehicles, helicopters are used to drop fish in a few wilderness lakes. Private waters can be stocked with the permission of the game and fish, and the hatcheries provide the fish used to stock these private waters. Thanks to fish stocking efforts for over 100 years, fishermen and women have been able to reel in their limit. From the University of Wyoming Extension, I'm Mae Smith, Exploring the Nature of Wyoming.