Q. While the ROK-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) will come into force on July 1, the ROK-U.S. FTA is still awaiting approval from the U.S. Congress. Could you tell us about the prospects for Congressional approval of the deal?

"It was such a significant issue that even President Barack Obama mentioned the trade deal during his State of the Union address in January, and he also called on Congress to ratify it ‘as soon as possible.' Therefore, you will likely see in the coming weeks the submission of the legislation to Congress, and I expect that it will pass through both the House and the Senate after a robust discussion of it. I think that with the Administration and many stakeholders in the United States from business to workers to individual states and communities saying how important this is for the American economy and for Korea-U.S. relations, I'm very optimistic about the ratification process."

Q. The Six-Party Talks aimed at resolving the North Korean nuclear issue have been at a stalemate for more than two years. Some officials, such as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, argue that the United States should have bilateral dialogue with the North to smooth the way for the resumption of the [Six-Party] Talks. What do you think we need now to resume the stalled Six-Party Talks?

"U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Policy Stephen Bosworth already mentioned this issue in details at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the North Korean issue yesterday (March 1). We all agree that it is very important to improve inter-Korean relations, and we also understand that when we verify that the North truly wants to see a tangible improvement in its relations with the ROK, we should be ready to accept bilateral and multilateral dialogue."

Q. Regarding Mr. Bosworth's mention about food aid to the North, some observers speculate that there will be some change in the stalled U.S.-North Korea relations.

"(Shaking her head) The U.S. approach on the provision of humanitarian assistance including food assistance internationally has always been a principled one based upon an assessment of the need and the ability to monitor in an appropriate way to ensure the assistance gets to those who are most needy. We are applying those same principles to any consideration of humanitarian assistance to North Korea, and therefore, he [Amb. Bosworth] did not indicate any particular change."

Q. The "Jasmine Revolution" is sweeping the Middle East. Considering the lack of social networking services and a different type of regime in North Korea, it may be difficult to draw a direct comparison [between the Middle East and North Korea,] but do you think that the pro-democracy movements in the Middle East could affect North Korea?

"To be honest with you, I do not know. It is difficult to speculate on it because North Korea is certainly one of the most isolated places in the world when it comes to the availability of news about the outside world."

Q. While the ROK-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) will come into force on July 1, the ROK-U.S. FTA is still awaiting approval from the U.S. Congress. Could you tell us about the prospects for Congressional approval of the deal?

"It was such a significant issue that even President Barack Obama mentioned the trade deal during his State of the Union address in January, and he also called on Congress to ratify it ‘as soon as possible.' Therefore, you will likely see in the coming weeks the submission of the legislation to Congress, and I expect that it will pass through both the House and the Senate after a robust discussion of it. I think that with the Administration and many stakeholders in the United States from business to workers to individual states and communities saying how important this is for the American economy and for Korea-U.S. relations, I'm very optimistic about the ratification process."

Q. Recently, the issue of redeploying U.S. tactical nuclear weapons to the ROK in the event of a contingency on the Korean Peninsula stirred up some controversy. Some observers also point out that it is possible for the United States to assist the ROK with tactical nuclear weapons as part of its extended deterrence. If the ROK wants, is there a possibility that the United States will redeploy its tactical nuclear weapons to USFK?

"Our position is very clear on this, and we reaffirmed it at a Senate hearing yesterday (March 1). We want to see the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. That means no nuclear weapons in North Korea. There are no nuclear weapons right now in South Korea. In terms of the ROK, it's our assessment that the reintroduction of these weapons is neither desirable nor needed."

Q. President Obama, in his speeches, praised the ROK especially for its education. In the ROK, however, many people point out that the education problem is very serious. What is your take on this?

"So many Koreans talked about it. Those who are currently living in the ROK or those who have been watching the ROK's education system may know that education is such an important issue for Koreans. Personally, I am also well aware of (Koreans') education fervor as well as the stress incurred by children and families due to excessive [education-related] competition.

President Obama seems to think that every education system has some problems, and he appears to want to introduce Korea's education fervor and parents' active interest in education to the United States. In my opinion, President Obama believes that in this aspect, the ROK is a good model.

However, as everybody knows it, there is no such thing as a perfect education system. Therefore, while the United States learns education fervor from the ROK's education system, the ROK could learn a wider variety of teaching methods from the United States."

Q. Would you raise your child in a Korean-style education system?

"Since my son has already grown up, I can only give you a hypothetical answer. The biggest challenge would be language, but I can say 'Yes.' This is because I know that the ROK also has many good schools and teachers. However, when it comes to sending my child to ‘hagwon,' a private institute, I would need to discuss with Korean parents, teachers and friends."

Q.  Could you tell us about U.S.-ROK relations and public sentiments in both countries now and at the time of your assignment to the ROK? When you arrived in the ROK, U.S. beef imports were a "big issue."

"The ROK and the United States have a very friendly alliance, and they are deepening and expanding it day by day. In addition, I think that I am lucky that I have served in the ROK at a time when I can contribute to creating the best and strongest relationship in the world.

When I arrived in the ROK in September, 2008, I received a truly warm welcome from the ROK—although it is a Korean tradition. When I went out on the streets, many people, who had concerns or expectations about ROK-U.S. relations, recognized and approached me and said that they wanted to see an improvement in ROK-U.S. relations. This is a message showing that the ROK-U.S. relations are very important, and we are actually working together to maintain a good relationship. 

Even President Obama said that (the bilateral relationship) ‘has never been better than it is today.' (A fluent Korean speaker, Stephens repeated the same phrase in Korean.)"

Q. Unlike other U.S. Ambassadors to the ROK, you travel across the ROK to reach out to Koreans, even gaining the nickname "Star Ambassador." Is there any special reason?

"Thank you very much for appreciating my efforts. Whenever I am assigned to a certain nation, I think that I must understand the nation and its people because that is what a diplomat and an Ambassador is supposed to do. To me, Korea this may have been a little easier than it was for my predecessors. This is because I lived in the ROK before, I speak Korean, and I feel comfortable with Korean culture.

I visited the ROK in 1975 for the first time, and I wanted to know how much the ROK and Koreans' thought have changed ever since, and I watched actual changes with interest.   

Q.  This might be a little premature, but you are going to leave office in six months. Do you have any future plans? Are you going to continue to work to strengthen ROK-U.S. relations?

"(Laughter) This is my third time to live in the ROK. It is a great honor to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the ROK. In my third year in office, I still have many things to do, including the ROK-U.S. FTA, but after leaving office, I hope to continue to make contributions to this great (U.S.-Korea) relationship for the rest of my life. In fact, I do not know what to do after leaving office, but I will always carry a huge interest in and commitment to this relationship."

Q. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Peace Corps. You actually worked as a Peace Corps volunteer in the ROK. What does the Peace Corps mean for you? How did your service in the ROK affect you today?

"Thank you for asking that question. The Peace Corps is still engaging in various activities around the world, and I think that it is the best program ever from the United States Government. I can say that this program has inspired the United States and people around the world throughout many generations.

It is true that while serving in the ROK as a Peace Corps member, I underwent a series of difficulties which I had never experienced before. It was not easy for a young woman to adapt to living and working in a nation which she hardly knew.

At that time, I needed to completely assimilate into a Korean organization. I serve in many countries as a diplomat, but it is about working at a U.S. Embassy, a U.S. institution.  Therefore, it is difficult to compare it with Peace Corps activities. I think that at that time, I had experience which was totally new mentally, physically, and emotionally. However, any Peace Corps member has such experience.

[Through such experience,] I witnessed the strength and various talents of Koreans in person, and that has had an enormous impact on my life.  

Translation by Yonhap News. Republished with permission.

". . . History, values, memory, and identity are significant elements that can influence the 'soft power' of an alliance built on 'hard power,' and policy makers of both nations should not overlook their importance," says Gi-Wook Shin, director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and the Stanford Korean Studies Program, in the chapter that he contributed to the recently published book U.S. Leadership, History, and Bilateral Relations in Northeast Asia.

In his chapter "Values and History in U.S.-South Korean Relations," Shin discusses developments in the types of issues that the United States and South Korea have collaborated on in recent years--including free trade agreements, Iraq and Afghanistan military operations, and policy coordination toward North Korea--and the significance of issues of history, values, memory, and identity--such as inter-Korean reconciliation and memories of U.S. military maneuvers in Korea--that have given the U.S.-South Korea relationship a "more complex and multidimensional" nature.

Published by Cambridge University Press in October 2010, the book was edited by Gilbert Rozman of Princeton University's Department of Sociology.

The North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and his youngest son and presumed successor, Kim Jong-un, jointly attended military maneuvers on an unspecified date. This was the first official outing of the 27-year-old youngest son of the "Dear Leader." These maneuvers were held just before the Sunday celebration of the 65th anniversary of the founding of the Workers Party of Korea. David Straub, associate director of the Korean Studies Program at Stanford University, discussed the informal transfer of power that took place last week.

What was learned last week about the succession to Kim Jong-il in North Korea?

The maneuvers confirmed with near certainty the past few years of speculation that the third son of Kim Jong-il has been informally designated as his successor. This process is now public. This is the first time that the name of Kim Jong-un has been published in North Korea. However, as long as his father is alive and can govern, he will remain in power. But, clearly, his health is not good. This official outing of the son seems in preparation for the possibility that Kim Jong-il may die suddenly. Kim Jong-il suffered a stroke in 2008, after which he disappeared for several months. Upon his return, he had lost weight and appeared stiff and impaired on his left side.

Was Kim Jong-un touted as the successor?

There were no signs until a few years ago. First, it was Kim Jong-nam, the eldest son, who was favored. Officially, he fell out of the race when he was caught entering Japan with a forged passport. At the time, he told Japanese officials he wanted to take his son to Tokyo Disneyland [the target of an attempted contract killing by Kim Jong-un in 2008, the eldest now lives happily in Macao, ed.]. It is then the second son, Kim Jong-chol, who was poised to be the successor. But in Pyongyang, it was thought that he was not sufficiently ambitious and aggressive. Then, all eyes turned to Kim Jong-un, who has the personality of his father: ambitious, aggressive, and ruthless.

The main question then was how Kim Jong-un would be promoted. Most observers were betting on a gradual process. In this sense, it is not really surprising. He was appointed as a four-star general, which is a mostly symbolic distinction. He was also made vice-president of the Central Military Party. This underscores how strong the military is in North Korea. What surprised me most is that the younger sister of Kim Jong-il was also appointed as a four-star general. In line with the predictions of observers, Kim Jong-il has mobilized his immediate family to create a sort of regency capable of supporting his son in the event of his sudden death.

What is known about Kim Jong-un?

He was probably born in 1983 or 1984. However, the regime may try to say he was born in 1982. In Chinese culture-and also in North Korea-numbers are significant. Kim Il-sung, his grandfather, was born in 1912. Kim Jong-il was born in 1942. That would put Kim Jong-un in a kind of celestial lineage. It is almost certain that he attended school in Switzerland, where he was a quiet student. He had a false name, Pak-un, and one or two close friends. He also liked basketball. He then returned to Pyongyang. Some unconfirmed reports say he studied at a military university. A few years ago, it was said he had been appointed to the office of the Workers Party and the office of National Defense Committee, which is the highest organ of power in North Korea.

Who now heads North Korea? What is the power structure like?

The general view is that Kim Jong-il is the supreme leader-an absolute dictator-and he has tremendous latitude. He bases his legitimacy on the fact that he is the son of the founder of the regime. But nobody can run a country alone. He must therefore take into account various factors. In North Korea in recent decades, the military has played a growing role and seems to occupy a dominant place today.

A university professor based in South Korea believes that the regime in Pyongyang has greatly copied Japanese pre-war fascism, even though Korea fought against imperialism. The scheme is based on a totalitarian structure, relying in particular upon the military. Information is very strictly controlled and the population is monitored, as in East Germany. The structure remains very closed, and the leadership is afraid to open up to the outside world and receive investment or foreign aid. Finally, family occupies an important place. North Korea is part of China's cultural sphere, with a strong presence of Confucianism. The notion of the state is close to the family structure model. The king is seen as the head of the family.

Does a period of transition put the regime in danger? What took place before?

It is inevitable that one day a regime that is so rigid and incapable of transformation will suffer major changes. However, we cannot say when or what form this will take. But it is clear that unusual things can happen during a period of change like this. The last transition was very similar to the current process. The difference is that Kim Jong-il had been clearly designated as the successor by his father and he had decades to gradually gain experience and consolidate his power within the system. Kim Jong-il managed most affairs of state since 1980, when the last Workers Party meeting was held. He was the de facto leader for 14 years. When his father died in 1994, however, he took three years to formally become established as the leader. The difference today is that Kim Jong-il suffered a stroke in 2008. Some people in North Korea are afraid that his son had not had enough time to prepare for power. Kim Jong-un must particularly ensure that the military is loyal to him. That is why he was made a general.

What legacy does he leave his son Kim Jong-un?

Although North Korea has said for decades that it follows the principles of juche or self-sufficiency, it largely sustained itself during the Cold War by trade with the USSR and its satellite states, and China. It received much help. Now that the USSR has collapsed and China has turned to a market economy, the economic situation in North Korea has become untenable. The country suffered a terrible famine in the mid-1990s. Nobody knows for sure how many people died, but it was certainly several hundred thousand. Some say that there were more than one million deaths, out of a total population of 22-23 million people. The government then had to loosen its grip on the system. This has helped the country recover. Today, access to basic resources is much better in North Korea than it was fifteen years ago.

The country was also helped by foreign aid from Japan, South Korea, the United States, and China. Now, because of the crisis over its nuclear program, the only foreign aid that comes into Pyongyang is from China. The North Korean regime faces a dilemma: its only resource is its workers. It fears opening up to accept foreign capital and technology, which would expose the people to outside reports that fundamentally contradict the regime's decades-old claims. That is why the few commercial contacts are with ideologically similar countries, like Syria or Iran. As for the industrial project in Kaesong near the border between North and South, it is very closely monitored by the authorities.

What is the situation at the diplomatic level?

North Korea has no close allies in the world. It cooperates with Cuba, Syria, or Iran, but these countries are isolated. Their relationship is either rhetorical or in connection with the nuclear program. As for its neighbors, North Korea does not like them. The South is seen as an existential threat; it is another Korean state, comprising two-thirds of the Korean nation, and has been a phenomenal success. The situation is different with China. Officially, both countries are driven by an eternal friendship, but this is based primarily on strategic considerations. Nevertheless, China provides a lifeline to North Korea.

Finally, I think in the last two decades, Pyongyang has toyed with the idea of a strategic alliance with the United States to counterbalance Chinese influence. But for domestic political reasons and because of the situation of human rights in North Korea, the Americans have never pushed this idea further. The North Koreans have realized that this strategic relationship was probably a dream.

The fundamental problem behind all of this is due to an accident of history. After the liberation of the peninsula from Japanese occupation in 1945, the division between the Soviets and Americans-for practical reasons-was not intended to be permanent. Today, there are two states, each of which thinks that it best represents the Korean nation and that  it should be in charge of the affairs of the peninsula in its entirety. It is a zero-sum game. All issues about the current succession flow from this.

In the wake of the global financial crisis, some have dubbed China and the United States the G2, signifying their centrality in global economics and politics. Even so, the relationship between China and the United States is rife with new tensions. Trade and currency challenges persist, complicated by domestic politics and differing approaches to security issues.

In its annual conference to honor the memory of eminent China scholar Michel Oksenberg, Stanford's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center gathered distinguished policymakers and analysts to examine colliding—and overlapping—interests in U.S.-China relations.

The conference was kicked off by Jeffrey Bader, special assistant to the president and senior director for East Asian Affairs at the National Security Council, who began by exploring the possibility of productive, stable relations amid values that appear to differ vastly. In support of this idea, Bader pointed to successive American presidents, going back to Richard Nixon, who found points of commonality with China. China poses a different challenge today, he argued, than even a decade ago, as its influence has grown alongside its commercial and economic presence. The Obama administration, Bader explained, has sought China's support on key issues and pursued partnership within the context of a broader Asian policy. He concluded by saying that China's rise is not intrinsically incompatible with American interest, but that does not preclude ongoing competition.

A panel chaired by Jean C. Oi, director of the Stanford China Program, next looked at competition and cooperation in the U.S.-China economic relationship. Despite the dangers of speculative bubbles and weakened export markets, the prospects for sustained economic growth in China remain very good, argued Nicholas Lardy, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Robert Kapp, former president of the U.S.-China Business Council, explored growing challenges facing American business in China, exemplified by recent clashes over Internet censorship. Despite the U.S.-China clash at the Copenhagen global climate conference, Stanford Law Professor Thomas Heller contended that behind the scenes global consensus on this issue has advanced.

Points of tension in the security relationship were the focus of a panel chaired by Amb. Michael H. Armacost, the Shorenstein Distinguished Fellow. China-Taiwan tensions have improved, but Smith College's Steve Goldstein cautioned that Taiwan's policies could shift again, particularly if the promised economic benefits of improved ties do not materialize. China and the United States must likewise manage challenging allies in North Korea and Japan respectively, said Alan Romberg, director of the East Asia Program at the Henry L. Stimson Center. Finally, the United States and China have both congruent and conflicting interests at stake in dealing with the situations in Iran and Pakistan, Stanford's Thomas Fingar, the Oksenberg/Rohlen Distinguished Fellow at FSI, told the gathering.