[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NEXT STEPS IN THE U.S.-REPUBLIC OF
KOREA ALLIANCE
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 27, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-31
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-697 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
TREY RADEL, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
TED S. YOHO, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
MATT SALMON, Arizona Samoa
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania BRAD SHERMAN, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
LUKE MESSER, Indiana WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
------
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade
TED POE, Texas, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina BRAD SHERMAN, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TOM COTTON, Arkansas JUAN VARGAS, California
PAUL COOK, California BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
TED S. YOHO, Florida Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. James P. Zumwalt, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East
Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State............ 9
The Honorable Thomas M. Countryman, Assistant Secretary,
International Security and Nonproliferation, U.S. Department of
State.......................................................... 17
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. James P. Zumwalt: Prepared statement......................... 11
The Honorable Thomas M. Countryman: Prepared statement........... 19
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 36
Hearing minutes.................................................. 37
NEXT STEPS IN THE U.S.-REPUBLIC OF KOREA ALLIANCE
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock
p.m., in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve
Chabot (chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific)
presiding.
Mr. Chabot. The subcommittees will come to order. Before we
begin, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Texas, Judge Poe, chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation, and Trade, for joining the Asia and Pacific
Subcommittee and holding this hearing this afternoon. I, of
course, want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from
American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega; and the gentleman from
California, Mr. Sherman, the ranking member of the TNT
Subcommittee, who I believe will be here shortly.
This year marks a truly important milestone in the U.S.-
South Korean alliance as we commemorate the 60th anniversary of
the armistice that ended the Korean War. This conflict claimed
the lives of more than 170,000 U.S. and South Korean soldiers
and more than 370,000 civilians. Sixty years later, our
friendship endures and, in fact, has grown stronger.
A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit South Korea
with my good friend, the ranking member, Mr. Faleomavaega, to
meet with President Park, the minister of foreign affairs, and
other Korean Government officials, as well as tour the
demilitarized zone and visit with our American troops who live
and work in that stressful and dangerous environment.
Today in South Korea, a once war-torn nation has become a
world class economy and leader in high tech innovation. South
Korea's growing commitment to democracy, human rights, and the
rule of law is in strong contrast to its northern neighbor.
The past 60 years of the U.S.-South Korea relationship is
best characterized as a close friendship that has steadily
grown. Today, I think I can confidently say that our bilateral
relationship is at its best, particularly given the passage and
implementation of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement just a
little over a year ago. The bond between the people of the U.S.
and the people of South Korea is strong and continues to grow.
One group that certainly deserves special recognition is
the Korean American community, which has worked tirelessly to
ensure that the U.S.-Korea relationship remains strong,
relevant, and forward-looking.
With the threat of North Korean belligerence always
imminent, it is in the U.S.'s and South Korea's best interest
to ensure that the next 60 years of this relationship are as
strong and as vibrant as the past 60 years.
South Korea's economy depends heavily on clean, low-cost
energy. Without the benefits of domestic energy resources,
South Korea depends almost entirely on imported energy with the
exception of power generated by its domestic nuclear energy
power plants. Given the ROK's continued economic growth, it is
unlikely that the government can continue to provide enough
low-cost electricity to fuel its economy. The ability to
recycle nuclear fuel would ease this problem. That is why it is
vitally important for the U.S. and South Korea to complete
negotiations on a modern, 21st century civilian nuclear
agreement.
The adoption of a new 123 agreement would also have a
direct impact on American jobs; in particular, manufacturing
jobs for those industries supplying South Korea with the
components it needs to grow and maintain its power supply.
Earlier this month, I joined Chairman Royce and Ranking
Member Engel as well as Judge Poe, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr.
Collins, and Mr. Kinzinger in introducing H.R. 2449,
legislation to extend, for 2 years, the current U.S.-South
Korean civilian Nuclear Energy Cooperation Act, which is
scheduled to expire in March 2014. An extension agreement while
negotiators continue to work on and refine substantive issues,
I believe, is an important and necessary step in this process.
I look forward to working with the chairman and my colleagues
in moving the legislation forward.
When President Park addressed a joint session of Congress
last month, she reaffirmed South Korea's commitment to the
vision of a world without nuclear weapons, which must start on
the Korean Peninsula.
South Korea has said time and time again that it is firmly
committed to the principle of nonproliferation. In fact, South
Korea hosted the second Nuclear Security Summit last year. On
the other hand, North Korea has made its intentions quite
clear. The Kim dictatorship has no desire to halt its nuclear
weapons program. Its recent calls for talks with conditions
have to be taken, obviously, with a grain of salt.
North Korea takes no responsibility for its behavior but
blames the United States for the worsening situation on the
peninsula. The U.S. must maintain a consistent position that
makes it crystal clear to the regime in Pyongyang that we will
not concede to its unreasonable demands. I hope the
administration pursues a path that will increase security for
not only South Korea but for the international community as
well.
I look forward to hearing from our panel this afternoon.
And, with that, I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman
from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, for his opening
statement.
I would note that we are going to have votes on the floor
shortly, so we will be interrupted. Also, both Judge Poe and
myself are in the Judiciary Committee, and we are marking up
one of the immigration bills as I speak, so we are going to be
going around and trying to tag team this hearing to some
degree. We hope that doesn't disrupt the hearing too much.
I recognize the gentleman from Samoa, the ranking member,
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to
thank you both and Chairman Poe for your leadership in calling
this joint subcommittee hearing.
I also want to offer my personal welcome to Secretary
Zumwalt and Secretary Countryman for being witnesses to our
hearing this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, you and I recently had the opportunity to
meet with President Park Geun-hye at the Blue House on April 29
this year. President Park is the first freely elected woman
leader among the nations of northeast Asia and the first woman
President of the Republic of Korea. She is certainly a role
model for women everywhere.
I just want to note as something of an historical matter,
Mr. Chairman, that she is on her way now to Beijing to meet
with President Xi of the People's Republic of China, what I
consider a very interesting movement in terms of what is
happening there.
I was deeply touched that the first matter which she raised
with me during our meeting was an op. ed. I wrote about the
comfort women issue, which was published by the Kyunghyang
Seoul newspaper on the very day we met with her.
As you know, during World War II, many young girls were
forced into wartime brothels. Two hundred thousand Asian women,
Mr. Chairman, were brought in by Japanese imperial forces. And
many of these young girls that were forced into sexual slavery
were from the Republic of Korea. Today, we affectionately refer
to these women as our godmothers. I refer to them as my
mothers. Their story is near and dear to my heart. And this is
why the first hearing I held as chairman of this subcommittee
was about them.
I will never forget the courage Madam Park showed in
attending that hearing, where three victims, two Korean ladies
and one Dutch lady, sitting right over there testified. At the
time in 2007, even Members of Congress were hesitant to show
public support for these women who were forced into sexual
slavery during World War II, but Madam Park did not hesitate.
She sat prominently in the front row of this hearing room. That
was the first Korean leader ever to attend a hearing in the
U.S. Congress in support of these women.
I want to once more publicly commend Mr. Dongchan Kim and
his organization of the Korean American Civic Empowerment for
taking the lead in spearheading community efforts for the
successful passage of House Resolution 121, which calls upon
the Japanese Government to issue a formal apology for what they
did to some 200,000 Asian women during World War II.
I also want to add my voice in support of fully
implementing the U.S.-Korean free trade agreement. On March 20
of this year, former chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, our dear
friend and colleague, of the Foreign Affairs Committee and I
introduced H.R. 1279, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement
Fairness Act, a bipartisan legislation which will grant
Republic of Korea nationals a similar visa status for skilled
workers as was granted to Australian citizens following the
successful negotiation of the U.S.-Australia free trade
agreement. Subsequent to the adoption of the free trade
agreement with the United States, Australia was able to obtain
10,500 E3 visas per year, which are similar to the H1B visas
from the United States, for which only citizens of Australia
are eligible. Due to some oversight, negotiators failed to work
out an agreement like this for the Republic of Korea during the
free trade agreement negotiations with Korea. And this is why
Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen and I worked hard in the aftermath
to create parity for the Republic of Korea.
As a longstanding ally of the United States, we believe the
Republic of Korea deserves fair treatment. So we put forward a
bill which would grant the Republic of Korea nationals 10,500
visas per year for skilled workers that meet the eligibility
requirements.
Given that our bill provides parity, we were hopeful that
our bill would be passed by this House, but, regrettably, the
Korean Embassy here in Washington decided they did not want
parity. They just wanted a little more than 10,000 visas. I am
not supportive of this higher quota, Mr. Chairman, because it
is insensitive to other countries and must specify to our
American workers who do not need to be needlessly displaced. I
also do not believe we should open up a visa bidding war with
the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations coming up.
I am supportive of the 123 civil nuclear cooperation
agreement, although I do believe we need to take some time to
work out our differences regarding how to treat fuel-making
technologies. So I am pleased that we have simply extended the
current agreement for 2 years until we can resolve these
technicalities.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. And thank you for
the opportunities.
Mr. Chabot. I thank the gentleman for his statement. We
will recognize Chairman Poe for his 5-minute opening statement.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Chairman Chabot, for working to put
this important hearing together about the United States-South
Korea alliance and the 123 agreement.
The South Korean people are allies of the United States. We
have a lot of allies, the United States does. But South Korea
has a special relationship as an ally. Our two nations, our
peoples have both shed blood together on the same soil in South
Korea. That bond makes this relationship unique. South Korea
has always been important to us because of its national
security interest in its own right but our national security
interest. And with President Kim in North Korea, or Junior, as
I like to call him, being a real threat to South Korea and the
United States and the rest of the world, it needs to be obvious
to us and the South Koreans and the rest of the world that our
relationship is strong and will be stronger.
One example of the strength of our relationship is our
cooperation on civilian nuclear energy in the last 30 years. We
have American companies in South Korea and South Korean
companies here in the United States. I have a large Korean
community in my district in Houston.
And it was good to learn finally--I didn't know--that the
ranking member was also a University of Houston Law School
graduate. I did actually graduate from there after you did, but
it is good to hear that.
In any event, the agreement that we have has allowed
cooperation. And the so-called 123 agreement expires next
March. It turns out a new agreement has been tough to figure
out and get done. The sticking point seems to be disagreements
over fuel-making technologies, such as enrichment and
reprocessing. Enrichment and reprocessing capabilities are
important because they can be used to make material for nuclear
weapons.
South Korea wants the new 123 agreement to include U.S.
advance consent for future Korean civilian reprocessing and
enrichment activities. South Korea says it needs advance
consent to deal with nuclear waste, but it is unclear how dry
cask storage would solve this problem. I am sure our two
witnesses will answer that question specifically.
U.S. law states that it is U.S. policy not to give advance
consent to enrichment or reprocessing. There are political
issues in the region. And international agreements already have
been made that have to be considered as well, but time is
running out. This past April, the United States and South Korea
agreed to a simple 2-year extension of the old agreement. I do
support extending this agreement because it will prevent
thousands of Americans from losing their jobs, from reactor
vendors to equipment suppliers. And there are hundreds of
millions of dollars in bilateral nuclear trade between our two
Nations. We just can't keep extending agreements indefinitely.
It reminds me of the CR that we constantly do on the House
floor on our budget.
We certainly don't or I don't want another 2 years to pass
and find us right back here, same witnesses, same story,
Groundhog Day, trying to make a decision about what to do.
Our business community needs certainty. Businesses,
especially in this industry, cannot make financial decisions
and other business decisions that may be revoked in 2 years.
Congress needs to also know that the laws it passes will be
followed by this administration and any administration.
I am looking forward from our witnesses as to what the
United States' position should be on these negotiations when it
comes to advance consent and enrichment. I also want to know
the difference between 2 years and a long-range solution and
what their ideas are on that. I do hope both sides understand
the limitations of the other in a long-term deal until it is
made.
And I also want to do comment about the issue that the
ranking member has brought out of the comfort women. That is an
issue that is very important, not just for South Korea and
Japan, but it is important for us to move forward and get that
issue resolved as soon as possible. That is an historical event
that cannot be ignored. And we should not ignore it here so
many, 60 years later.
But that is a different issue for a different day. And I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chabot. I thank the gentleman for his statement. I
would just note the Chair agrees with both of the gentlemen on
the comfort women issue and thank them both for bringing it up.
We have time to finish the opening statements. We will
recognize the ranking member of the TNT Subcommittee, the
gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
The Republic of Korea and the United States enjoy a strong
strategic alliance and warm friendship. The relationship is
based on our commitment to security, to democracy, and
prosperity. October 1, 2013 will mark the 60th anniversary of
the signing of the mutual defense treaty between the United
States and the Republic of Korea. Nearly 40,000 members of the
United States Armed Forces lost their lives defending the
people of Korea. Nearly 30,000 troops are stationed in South
Korea today. The United States has stood with Korea on the
comfort woman issue, even though another strong ally, the
United States, is on the other side. And the Korean American
community, with its 1.7 million members, is an important part
of the bilateral relationship and of the American fabric.
I did not support the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement,
which became effective roughly a year and a few months ago. We
were told at the time that this would reduce the trade deficit
with South Korea. In fact, that deficit has increased. The
deficit hit an all-time high of $2.4 billion in April 2013.
Imports hit a record high while U.S. exports to South Korea
actually were less January to April 2013, then January to April
2012 before the agreement really went into effect. This
translates into a loss of jobs. We need a more balanced trade
policy.
And, as I have said before in this room, if we continue our
trade policy, there will be a catastrophic drop in the value of
the United States dollar. But don't worry. It won't happen in
the next 5 years or probably won't happen in the next 5 years.
North Korea continues its threats of military aggression
against our ally, including the March 10 sinking of the naval
ship, the bombardment of Yeonpyeong Island. The 2013 Korean
crisis was an escalation of military tensions by North Korea
against South Korea. The United States and Japan began--that is
to say it was aimed at all three of those allies, and it began
following the launch of the so-called satellite December 12,
2012 and the third nuclear test February 12th, 2013.
Kim Jong-Un, the new leader of this totalitarian regime,
has used extreme rhetoric. At more than one point, he has
threatened imminent attack against the United States homeland.
The international community has condemned North Korea in its
military aggression. In March 7, 2013, the United Nations
Security Council resolution 2094 is just the latest example of
that.
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and I have introduced the
Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability
Act of 2013. We introduced the earlier version of that act back
in 2011. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor that legislation,
which would target those firms and states that assist North
Korea, as well as Iran and Syria, develop and build nuclear
weapons and other weapons of mass and destruction.
The main reason our subcommittee is involved in these
hearings is because of the focus on the nuclear cooperation
agreement between South Korea and the United States. South
Korea plans to significantly expand its already advanced
nuclear program in the coming years and decades. The United
States has been committed to a denuclearization of the
peninsula and, thus, is opposed to reprocessing and enrichment
on the peninsula.
The gold standard model for 123 agreements or nuclear
cooperation agreements is embodied in our agreement with the
United Arab Emirates, which legally binds U.S. partners to
foreswear enrichment and reprocessing. So it comes down to
enrichment and reprocessing.
The United States and South Korea have recently agreed on a
2-year extension of our agreement, rather than revising the
agreement, but both countries would like to see a long-term
deal, so would like to enrich uranium and reprocess spent fuel
rods to develop and expand its nuclear power industry. I
commend the administration for not agreeing to advance consent
rights for plutonium reprocessing of fuel of U.S. origin. South
Korea wants a nuclear agreement that provides U.S. advance
consent for such reprocessing. And that would carry deep
proliferation concerns.
I look forward to further negotiations with South Korea and
to the resumption of this hearing after votes. I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
We have votes on the floor. I estimate we will be back in
about \1/2\ hour to 45 minutes for the series of votes. The
subcommittees are in recess.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Chabot. The subcommittees will be back in order. We
have several members who might like to make 1-minute
statements. We will begin with the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And, indeed, I would like to express my appreciation of our
relationship with the Republic of Korea. I have had the unique
opportunity to visit South Korea several times. And each time I
visit, it is just awesome to see how dynamic the people are and
what a great alliance that we have of shared values of working
together, just honored to be here and look forward to working,
particularly with a civilian nuclear agreement. I just see such
positive. In my home State of South Carolina, we have
Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels/Toshiba. It is a classic case of
mutual self-benefit.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding the hearing and for our guests for coming to testify.
The alliance between the United States and the Republic of
Korea has brought stability, security, and prosperity to the
peninsula and the Asian Pacific region. Recently, the U.S.-
Korean free trade agreement has demonstrated our mutual
commitment of shared future economic growth and prosperity.
Trade between our countries totaled around $100 billion in
2012. It is expected to grow significantly in the coming years
because of the liberalized trade between the two countries.
That is not to say we don't face our challenges. Obviously
we see with North Korea's nuclear and ballistic program, we
have to continue to stay on our toes and stay committed to a
situation there, a peaceful solution.
I want to briefly discuss extending the bilateral civilian
nuclear cooperation, better known as a 123 agreement. As an
original cosponsor of 2449, I fully support the 2-year
extension that has been agreed to in principle by the
negotiators from the U.S. and the Republic of Korea.
Substantial progress has been made, but more time is needed to
complete a new agreement that recognizes both our country
status as global leaders of nuclear energy.
I agree with Assistant Secretary Countryman's testimony.
The swift passage of this 2-year extension would give both
countries the confidence that they need that our cooperation
will continue smoothly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Holding, is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Holding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the
administration's refocus on the Asia Pacific region and the
growing influence of China in that region, the importance of
maintaining strong economic and security ties with our allies
in the Pacific has never been more vital. The United States and
the Republic of Korea have enjoyed an enduring strategic
relationship; indeed, Mr. Chairman, an alliance forged on the
battlefield over 60 years ago and one that grows closer today
with tightened economic ties and increased threats from hostile
neighbors.
Later today, Mr. Chairman, in the Judiciary Committee, I
will offer an amendment to help realize the full potential of
the free trade agreement passed in 2011 by increasing the
number of visas available for highly educated and highly
skilled Korean workers and students. The addition of these
visas will be an added benefit to the U.S. economy and further
solidify our strategic relationship.
I thank you for calling this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. We will now introduce the
panel here this afternoon. I will begin with Mr. Zumwalt, who
began his tour as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Japan
and Korean Affairs on January 3, 2012. He previously served as
Embassy Tokyo's Deputy Chief of Mission. His prior assignments
include Director of the Officer of Japanese Affairs, Economic
Minister Councilor in Tokyo, and Economic Minister Councilor in
Beijing. He has also worked on the Korea and Philippine Desk in
Washington. Mr. Zumwalt is fluent in Japanese and also speaks
some Chinese and French.
Now I would like to introduce Thomas Countryman, who is a
career member of the Senior Foreign Service and is currently
serving as the Assistant Secretary for International Security
and Nonproliferation. He previously served as the principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Political Military Affairs and
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for European Affairs. Mr.
Countryman began his State Department career in 1982, serving
as a councilor and political officer in Belgrade. His prior
assignments include Director for Near East and South Asian
Affairs at the National Security Council, Minister Councilor
for Political Affairs at the American Embassy in Rome; Deputy
Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Athens; and as Foreign
Policy Adviser to General James Conway, the commandant of the
U.S. Marine Corps.
He speaks Serbo-Croatian, Arabic, Italian, Greek, and
German. Just for the record, I took a little Latin in high
school and a little French in college. And I think I got a C in
both.
We will now recognize each of the witnesses for 5 minutes.
We have a lighting system; a yellow light will let you know
that you have 1 minute to wrap up, the red light indicates it
is time to conclude your testimony. Mr. Zumwalt, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES P. ZUMWALT, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
Mr. Zumwalt. Chairman Chabot, Chairman Poe, Mr.
Faleomavaega, members of the subcommittees, I am pleased to
appear before you today to discuss this important topic.
I have submitted a longer statement for the record. And,
with your permission, I would like to deliver brief oral
remarks.
The U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance is a linchpin of
security and prosperity in Northeast Asia, and our bilateral
ties have never been stronger. Today, while our alliance
continues to counter the threat from North Korea, we are
expanding our cooperation to meet 21st-century challenges.
During her May 8 address to a joint meeting of Congress,
Republic of Korea President Park Geun-hye said, ``Along our
journey, we have been aided by great friends, and, among them,
the United States is second to none.'' What she was referring
to is our alliance was forged in shared sacrifice in the Korean
War. Today, we continue to strengthen and adapt our alliance to
meet existing and emerging security challenges.
We have made significant progress on the blueprint for the
future of our alliance, which outlines the conditions for the
transition of wartime operational control to a Republic of
Korea-led defense in December 2015. We continue to improve our
interoperability and readiness through annual exercises.
Our cooperation on global challenges is an increasingly
important pillar of our alliance. Today, American and Korean
soldiers stand side by side in Afghanistan. Korea has been a
leader in supporting Iran sanctions. We are working together on
Syria.
Our deep economic cooperation forms the engine of our
strategic relationship. The Republic of Korea is Asia's fourth
largest economy and our seventh largest trading partner. Our
two countries' trade topped 100 billion U.S. dollars in 2012.
This year marks the first anniversary of the entry into force
of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. This agreement is
increasing trade and investment between our two countries and
provides significant new opportunities for U.S. exporters. We
look forward to even more economic benefits as more provisions
of the agreement are implemented.
Our ties include strong cooperation in science and
technology, on cyber issues and on climate change. The United
States and Republic of Korea are also global leaders and
partners on peaceful nuclear energy. We both recently decided
to seek an extension of our existing civil nuclear cooperation
agreement, and we are in the process of negotiating a successor
agreement to continue and expand this cooperation. The
administration is ready to work with Congress to achieve an
early extension of the existing agreement, and we are grateful
for your efforts on the related pending draft legislation.
The foundation of our partnership rests on our people-to-
people ties and our shared commitment to freedom, democracy,
and the rule of law. Last year, more than 1 million South
Koreans visited the United States. The Republic of Korea sends
more university students to the United States per capita than
any other major economy. The United States is the clear top
choice for Korean entrepreneurs, scientists, and engineers who
wish to come here to create businesses and create new jobs and
develop technologies. And we very much support efforts to
facilitate these exchanges.
Let me now turn to our greatest challenge: North Korea.
Many of the DPRK's provocations in recent months have directly
targeted the United States and the Republic of Korea. We remain
fully committed to the defense of the Republic of Korea, and we
will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our ally in
the face of these provocations.
Despite North Korea's recent overtures, we have yet to see
concrete steps suggesting that North Korea is prepared to
negotiate on the key issue: The verifiable denuclearization of
the Korean Peninsula. We will continue to coordinate closely
with the ROK and with other Six-Party partners. The United
States remains committed to authentic and credible negotiations
to implement the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-
Party Talks and to bring North Korea into compliance with its
international obligations. We will not accept North Korea as a
nuclear-armed state. Nor will we reward the absence of bad
behavior or provide compensation merely for talking. U.S.-North
Korea relations, moreover, cannot fundamentally improve without
sustained improvement in inter-Korean relations.
In conclusion, the U.S.-ROK alliance has never been
stronger. And both our countries are working actively to
prepare for the future. President Park's landmark visit to
Washington this past May opened a new chapter in our
partnership. Strong and enduring congressional support for our
alliance and partnership with the Republic of Korea has been
critical to the success of our relationship for the last six
decades and will be even more important in the future.
Thank you for inviting me to testify on this important
topic. I am happy to answer any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zumwalt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Mr. Countryman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. COUNTRYMAN, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND NONPROLIFERATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Countryman. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Poe, Ranking Member
Faleomavaega, and members of the subcommittees, thank you for
this opportunity to testify about the negotiations on a
successor agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between
the U.S. and the Republic of Korea. The U.S. and the ROK
continue to be strong allies across the spectrum of political,
security, and economic issues. I like the way Judge Poe put it.
We have many allies, but the ROK is a special case. And I don't
believe any single issue can undo this alliance.
In the nuclear realm specifically, our two countries have a
long history of working together on the peaceful uses of
nuclear energy. And we press forward today with our shared
objective of achieving the verifiable denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner.
Today, I want to focus on this first area: The longstanding
peaceful nuclear cooperation between our two countries. The
U.S. and the Republic of Korea are in the process of
negotiating a new agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation,
generally referred to as a 123 agreement. The current agreement
entered into force in March 1973 and expires in March 2014. The
U.S. and the ROK began negotiating a successor agreement in
2010, and we have made substantial progress in negotiating a
text that will extend our long and fruitful partnership into
the future.
Because of the breadth and depth of our current and future
nuclear cooperation, our two countries jointly decided to seek
a 2-year extension of the existing agreement to give us more
time to complete negotiations and then fulfill our respective
domestic requirements to bring the new agreement into force.
The extension will facilitate the efforts of both our
governments to finalize an agreement that promotes U.S. and
South Korean objectives and requirements for nonproliferation
and civil nuclear cooperation. An extension would ensure that
there is no lapse in our ongoing civil nuclear cooperation,
preserving stability and predictability in our joint commercial
activities.
The two sides have pledged to work together diligently and
to conclude negotiations on a successor agreement as soon as
possible. In this regard, I want to thank Chairman Royce,
Ranking Member Engel, and other members of the committee who
have cosponsored the pending draft legislation, which would
authorize the President to extend the current term of the U.S.-
Republic of Korea agreement until March 2016. The
administration stands ready to work with Congress to achieve
the extension of this existing agreement. And early passage of
this legislation would provide confidence to both countries,
including our respective nuclear industries, that our civil
nuclear cooperation will continue smoothly.
Mr. Chairman, the United States and the Republic of Korea
are approaching these negotiations as close allies and partners
committed to advance both countries' global leadership in the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy and preventing nuclear
proliferation worldwide. I am confident our two governments can
produce a successor agreement that serves as a strong
foundation for our bilateral civil nuclear cooperation for the
future and reaffirms our common commitment to nuclear
nonproliferation.
So thank you again for this opportunity to discuss this
important aspect of our relationship with our ally: The
Republic of Korea. I look forward to your questions, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Countryman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. I
would like to ask this to both of the gentlemen. Without
commenting on the negotiating positions and your opinions, how
much importance does the Government of the Republic of Korea
assign to the successful renewal of the 123 agreement, the
civilian nuclear cooperation agreement? Why is it important to
the U.S.? What are the implications to the U.S.-Korea alliance
if, for some reason, the agreement is not renewed? I will start
with you, Mr. Zumwalt.
Mr. Zumwalt. I think the agreement is very important to the
Republic of Korea, partly because of the successful
relationship our industries have. They would like to see a
continuation and an enriching of that relationship.
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Countryman?
Mr. Countryman. The agreement is important to both
governments. It serves as a commitment to each other that we
are both determined to remain both technical and commercial
leaders in the global nuclear power industry. It ensures that
we continue to share the vital goal of preventing nuclear
nonproliferation. And, of course, renewing it on time given
this 2-year extension will prevent any interruption in our
commercial cooperation, which is essential, both for United
States provision of fuel and equipment to nuclear power plants
in the Republic of Korea and to U.S. content in the power
plants that the Republic of Korea is selling, for example, to
the United Arab Emirates. And I am confident that we will not
reach that situation of facing those consequences because of
the joint determination of both countries to get a good
agreement done within the time that we hope you will permit us.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Last week, North Korea's U.N. Ambassador held a news
conference during which he claimed North Korea was essentially
blameless for tensions on the Korean Peninsula and that their
recent nuclear and missile tests were purely for self-defense.
He further claimed that the U.S. is entirely responsible for
the ever-worsening situation on the Korean Peninsula.
Now, the history of relations with North Korea has been
they act up, they act outrageous, stomp around, and we
criticize them. Then at some point, we and our allies
essentially buy them off with food and/or fuel. Then they
promise to be better, and for at least some short period of
time, at least publicly, they are. Then they act up again and
we start this process all over.
How should we avoid this in the future? I will again start
with you, Mr. Zumwalt.
Mr. Zumwalt. As I said in my statement, we are determined
not to reward North Korea for provocation, for refraining from
provocation, or merely for coming back and talking. So what we
have stated is that we are open to authentic and credible
negotiations, which focus on denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula, but we are not interested in talks until we see that
North Korea is serious. And the way we would see this is by
North Korea taking some concrete steps that show us that they
have really changed their position.
So what our strategy now is to engage friends and partners
in the region, the other Six-Party partners, particularly
China, who has a unique relationship with North Korea, and
encourage China to use its influence to try and persuade North
Korea to take a different tack.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mr. Countryman?
Mr. Countryman. Nothing to add to that, sir.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Under President Park, South Korea intends
to reach out and develop closer ties with China. As the ranking
member, Mr. Faleomavaega, mentioned, President Park is meeting
with President Xi, I believe today or at least they were
heading there today. What can we expect from this visit, would
you say? How is this going to affect future relations, et
cetera, relatively briefly?
Mr. Zumwalt. We have had extensive consultations with Korea
about China. And, although I don't want to speak for the Korean
Government, obviously, we think it is very helpful that she
goes to China and talks directly. I think she will be asking
China to use its influence to persuade North Korea to become
serious about living up to its commitment to denuclearization.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mr. Countryman?
[No response.]
Mr. Chabot. All right. I will now recognize the ranking
member, Mr. Faleomavaega, for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple of questions. Secretary Zumwalt, did you say
that the United States will not accept North Korea as a
nuclear-armed state? The fact of the matter is North Korea
already has in its possession eight to ten nuclear weapons. How
do you denuclearize a state that already has nuclear weapons?
Mr. Zumwalt. I agree with what you are saying, but North
Korea has also expressed the desire to improve the welfare of
its people. And our strategy is to convince North Korea that it
is not possible both to be a nuclear weapon state and to have
the kind of economic engagement with the world that would
improve the livelihood of the North Korea people. So we are
working with friends and allies in the region, including China,
Japan, South Korea, and others, to impose economic sanctions
that we hope would persuade North Korea that it must choose a
different tack, begin serious negotiations about
denuclearization so it can achieve what it wishes, which is
improving the livelihood of the North Korean people.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Countryman?
Mr. Countryman. I would just add not to underestimate the
difficulty of the task, but the fact is that a unified world
community sending a consistent message caused four states
already, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and South Africa, to
give up possession of nuclear weapons. It ain't easy, but it
can be done.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You know, we have been participating in
the Six-Party Talks with North Korea for the last 6 or 7 years,
I believe. I certainly have some very serious questions on the
validity and the value of continuing these Six-Party Talks
because in my humble opinion, they have been a failure.
Secretary Zumwalt, could you comment on that? Should we
continue having these Six-Party Talks? Because it seems like it
has been just a whole bunch of rhetoric, ``You said this,'' ``I
said that,'' and tit for tat; with no results. Can you comment
on this? Should we continue having the Six-Party Talks?
And why should Russia be part of this when, in fact, at
least if I am wrong, all North Korea wanted was to negotiate
with the United States, perhaps even with South Korea? The
other countries don't seem relevant, but I may be wrong. Could
you enlighten us on this?
Mr. Zumwalt. I agree with you that the purpose of talks is
not to have talks but, rather, to achieve an objective. And our
objective is denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. And that
is why our position now is we won't engage in Six-Party Talks
until we see that North Korea is serious about implementing its
international obligations and its own statement that it would
aim for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. So until
North Korea shows us that it was serious about this, we won't
be engaging in talks.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The fact of the matter is--I may be
wrong--that the only American that has ever met with Kim Jong-
Un was a gentleman by the name of Dennis Rodman. Now, that is
not exactly my idea of a serious negotiation, but the problem
is we--if you call them experts or whatever we have out there,
it is anybody's guess as to what exactly has been in the minds
of the leaders of North Korea for all this time.
And I just wanted to ask, Mr. Countryman. You said that we
do have this 123 nuclear agreement with South Korea. Do we have
similar agreements with other countries? For example, is it
similar to the one we have with India?
Mr. Countryman. Each 123 agreement concluded under the
authority of the Atomic Energy Act has certain common elements,
as mandated by Congress, but each has unique elements that
address the particular level of development of that country and
the level of cooperation that we in that country are seeking to
have with each other. So yes, every one is similar, but every
one has unique characteristics as well.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I am sure that one of the concerns
that everybody has is that whether or not some day even South
Korea may want to have nuclear capabilities for the simple
reason that it wants to defend itself, no more than you would
Japan, China, or other countries that have in their possession
nuclear weapons.
And I am sure that this is part of the stipulations in this
agreement that we are working on, but let's say--and I am being
hypothetical about this. Do you see a real sense of realism in
the fact that maybe one day South Korea may want to exercise
that option, that they want to also become a nuclear power,
just like other countries? Secretary Zumwalt?
Mr. Zumwalt. President Park has stated very clearly her
policy that South Korea does not seek nuclear weapons. In her
address to the joint meeting of Congress, she said she
supported President Obama's mission of a nuclear-free world.
And she said let it start on the Korean Peninsula.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
Mr. Chabot. That is quite all right. The gentleman's time
has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, is recognized.
Mr. Poe. Thank you both for being here. Thank you for your
candor, although it seems to me it is a little tactful candor.
Let me just ask you bluntly, Mr. Zumwalt, does North Korea have
nuclear weapons in your opinion?
Mr. Zumwalt. North Korea has engaged in three nuclear
tests. And we are very concerned about their nuclear weapons.
Mr. Poe. So that would be? Is that a yes? Pick a horse and
ride it. Is it yes or no?
Mr. Zumwalt. They have them, yes.
Mr. Poe. Mr. Countryman?
Mr. Countryman. Yes.
Mr. Poe. All right. Thank you.
If the United States proceeds after the 123 agreement on a
long-term agreement with the problem being the advance consent
to enrichment and reprocessing, do you think in your opinion we
should make that additional step and grant that to South Korea?
Mr. Countryman. Well, in the 123 agreement, that is, of
course, one of several key questions that we are deciding and
that we are negotiating. So it wouldn't go into deep detail
about how we would resolve these issues between our two sides.
Mr. Poe. Do you have an opinion?
Mr. Countryman. Certainly.
Mr. Poe. Can I hear what it is?
Mr. Countryman. My opinion is that it is premature to
decide every potential question. Rather, what we need to find
is a process by which the U.S. and the ROK can together as
partners make smart decisions about technologies on the basis
of economics, technical feasibility, and nonproliferation
concerns.
Mr. Poe. All right. Based on your expertise, both of you,
we move forward with that step. North Korea, Junior up there,
what is he going to do? What is he going to say? What is he
going to do? What is his reaction? I am talking about the
President Kim. Excuse me.
Mr. Countryman. I think the ranking member also has already
pointed out that predictability is not the strongest suit of
the DPRK. So I am reluctant to make a prediction, but it is an
issue that we are constantly discussing with our key allies in
the region, the ROK, and Japan, as well as with the Chinese.
And I think that we--I will let Mr. Zumwalt comment further,
but I think we do try to take into account to the extent
possible the predicted result, the predicted reaction from
Pyongyang.
Mr. Poe. Mr. Zumwalt?
Mr. Zumwalt. Yes. Earlier, when I had said we were looking
to North Korea to take concrete steps to show it is serious
about denuclearization, one type of step it could take is
inviting back IAEA inspect its nuclear program. And that would
provide a lot of reassurance in the region. So certainly the
kinds of things we are talking about with South Korea I think
are the types of things we would like to talk about with North
Korea as well in terms of oversight of a nuclear program.
Mr. Poe. Different issue: Japan. What is Japan's position
on our 123 agreement and with Korea and then if we move forward
with advance consent to enrichment and reprocessing? Since you
worked in both places and you speak all of the languages, what
is your answer? What do you think, Mr. Zumwalt?
Mr. Zumwalt. You know, Japan right now is undergoing its
own rigorous debate about the future of its civilian nuclear
power industry. And, as you know, there is a lot of opposition
in Japan to continue its civilian nuclear program. At the same
time, they have a lot of technologies and are interested in
exporting nuclear power as well. So what I would answer is that
the debate is ongoing in Japan. And it is not clear how they
are going to come out.
Mr. Poe. Maybe my question wasn't clear. I am not really
talking about Japan. I am talking about Japan's position on us
dealing with South Korea.
Mr. Zumwalt. I don't want to speak for the Japanese
Government, but I have not heard in many years living there
concerns about the South Korean civilian nuclear program.
Mr. Poe. Mr. Countryman??
Mr. Countryman. I would say the same, that the Japanese
have not expressed, to my knowledge, a view to the U.S.
Government about our negotiation with a separate partner. I am
not sure it would be appropriate for them to do so. We deal
with each friend on our own terms, on the terms of that
relationship.
Mr. Poe. And then back to the question. We are all here in
the next 15 seconds. How would the U.S. economy be affected if
the 123 agreement is not approved?
Mr. Countryman. Thank you. As I mentioned, there are
exports from the United States. I am just trying to find the
right numbers here. In the last 10 years, from 2001 to 2010,
nuclear industry exports from the U.S. to the ROK totaled $181
million in those 10 years. Another example of the kind of
cooperation is the contract between the ROK and the United Arab
Emirates for nuclear reactors. Westinghouse and other U.S.
companies will carry out about 10 percent of the work
associated with this project, amounting to about $2 billion in
equipment and services and about 5,000 American jobs across 17
states.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Gabbard, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ranking
member. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I actually had a
follow-up regarding the benefits here, specifically with U.S.
jobs. I know the time had expired, am wondering if you had
anything to add specifically on that considering a lot of the
discussion has taken place on the benefit to our relationship
with South Korea and the challenges that we are facing there in
the region. I wanted to see if you could add anything else just
to what this extension of the current 123 agreement does to
both benefit the U.S.-Korea alliance but also benefit us here
in the United States from an economic perspective.
Mr. Countryman. Thank you. I don't think I will add
additional numbers. These are estimates generated by the
Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry association whom we
respect. I think what I would emphasize that is always a
concern for us is the predictability of commercial contracts
that maintaining the kind of cooperation that we have, the kind
of exports that we hope to grow in the nuclear field requires
countries such as the ROK and the United States to be able to
rely on each other and to have that predictable business
environment. So that is the point that goes beyond the numbers.
The other point is that the United States and the ROK I
think have been the most dynamic and innovative of all states
in developing their nuclear power industries, respectfully. If
we both want to stay on top of this; that is, we both want to
continue to have a reputation in the United States for
producing the world's safest reactors for export, I think that
we need to have that kind of predictability, which I am
confident we will achieve by conclusion of a new agreement. We
need this 2-year extension in the meantime.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you. As we talk about how we deal here
in the United States but also within the region with the
nuclearization of North Korea, you know, we discuss President
Obama's meeting with President Xi, President Park meeting with
him now as well, what do you expect the outcomes of these
discussions to be in the context of doing something differently
than we have been to come out with a different outcome and to
get us out of the vicious cycle that we have been in for so
long with North Korea. And, really, what are the objectives now
for the State Department to move toward the clear goal of
denuclearization?
Mr. Zumwalt. We have been encouraged by recent discussions
with the Chinese, including the Chinese President, that China
shares the same goal that we do of seeing a denuclearized
Korean Peninsula because I think China has made it very clear
recent actions by North Korea have not been in China's own
interest. And so we want to work closely with China to
implement U.N. sanctions in a way that will be more persuasive
to change North Korea's mind that it really has to take a
different approach toward this.
So right now, our efforts are not on talks with North Korea
but more on creating the right environment so that in the
future, we might be able to have such talks leading to
denuclearization.
Ms. Gabbard. Do you think China's buy-in to this collective
strategy is essential to meeting that objective?
Mr. Zumwalt. China plays an essential role, but they border
North Korea and have the most vibrant economic relationship. So
their role is essential, yes.
Ms. Gabbard. And the last question. You know, South Korea
in the last few years has been developing its own Korean air
and missile defense. Understandably with the threat that comes
from the north, what kinds of coordination and--or has there
been engagement there so that there is a coordinated effort
with South Korea and other East Asia allies to make sure that
the coverage is not duplicative and the efforts are done so in
a way that benefits our shared interests?
Mr. Zumwalt. Yes. We have had a long series of discussions
with our ally, the Republic of Korea, about what needs the
alliance faces. And given a heightened threat from North Korea
of North Korea's own missiles, we jointly agree that there is a
need for some additional capabilities. And that is one reason
we came to an agreement with Republic of Korea about its
revised missile guidelines so that we can address some of these
concerns.
Ms. Gabbard. And with our allies within the region as well
as others, has their missile defense development been received
well?
Mr. Zumwalt. Yes. In fact, I think everyone is concerned
about the threat of North Korean missiles and wants to
strengthen missile defense.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Yoho, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Dr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, good
afternoon.
I appreciate you being here. Korea to me is an amazing
story about where it came from 60 years ago to where we are
now. And I think we have all seen that satellite picture at
night of the Southern peninsula and the Northern peninsula. The
remarkable difference between what happens in a free society,
we would surely want that to continue.
Coming from Florida--and my background is in agriculture--
we are real happy about the free trade agreement. And I hear
from my cattlemen in our district how impressed they are with
the way the Koreans love our Florida beef, and we want to keep
that going. In fact, they said they like that. They prefer it
over the Australian beef. And so we are proud to report that
back.
How do you envision a South Korea-China relationship under
President Park, number one? And how will this affect a
relationship with South Korea? And how will it affect both of
their relationships with North Korea?
Mr. Zumwalt. Well, thank you very much for your endorsement
of U.S.-Korea free trade policy. We do have a lot of good news,
particularly in the area of agriculture. Koreans very much
appreciate high-quality, safe, inexpensive U.S. products. And I
think we will have bright prospects for the future as well.
Dr. Yoho. Did I mention our grapefruits from Florida, too?
Mr. Zumwalt. I was about to say citrus exports have been
among the brightest of our exports. So yes, that is very good.
Dr. Yoho. That is good.
Mr. Zumwalt. But, getting to the Korea-China relationship,
you know, obviously China to Korea is a very important country.
It is their largest trading partner. It is a very large economy
right on their doorstep. But also, in dealing with North Korea,
the South Korean Government recognizes that China plays a
critical role.
We have had extensive discussions with South Korea about
relations with China. And we are very comfortable with
President Park's visit. We think it will be helpful in terms of
convincing China to play a more active role dealing with North
Korea. So we are expecting to hear some good results of her
visit there and want to continue working closely with Korea as
we both engage China.
Dr. Yoho. Thank you.
Mr. Countryman??
Mr. Countryman. Nothing to add, sir
Dr. Yoho. Nothing? You know what? I have got to give you
guys credit. I have been through a lot of these. You guys have
short, succinct answers. And I know we all appreciate that. I
hope my questions are short and succinct.
Let's see. What can the administration do to strengthen
U.S. relationships in the Republic of South Korea? I mean, what
else can we do?
Mr. Zumwalt. You know, obviously, although we have an
agreement on Korea, U.S. free trade agreement, we do have
implementation going forward and want to continue engaging with
each other to make sure implementation goes smoothly. Our
agreement is that by 2016, 95 percent of U.S. manufactured
exports would enter Korea duty-free. And so we anticipate
increased exports but obviously want to keep working to make
sure that the promise of that agreement is implemented.
On people-to-people ties, we have some very good prospects
to continue encouraging Koreans to visit the United States,
come to U.S. colleges. I know immigration issues are being
debated now, and that is----
Dr. Yoho. The visa agreement increase, that would help?
That would----
Mr. Zumwalt. That is a very important discussion and is
something that could continue strengthening ties. And, then,
finally, continuing to strengthen our security alliance is very
important. Several members have commented on how North Korean
threats create a perception in South Korea of a challenge. And
so one thing we need to do is to continue reassuring our allies
that we will be there for them, we will be providing our
extended deterrence guarantee, the nuclear umbrella so that
Korea is not tempted to implement its own nuclear policy, they
can count on us. And we need to keep providing that
reassurance.
Dr. Yoho. Okay. Thank you.
Same?
Mr. Countryman. Well, from where I sit, I would only
emphasize the security relationship. Our security commitment to
each other is absolutely unbreakable, but it is not self-
implementing. That is, we have to work together on a daily
basis, make sure we understand each other, make sure we have
divided our roles and responsibilities accurately. And I think
that we do that on a daily basis.
The military-to-military relationship and the
understandings we have with each other on the political level,
that kind of security understanding is the backbone of this
relationship.
Dr. Yoho. Okay, Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The ranking member, Mr. Sherman, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Ambassador Zumwalt, I will spare you a question. I will
just give you the comment. We have seen an increase in imports
from South Korea that is larger than the increase in exports.
In fact, we have seen a decline in exports after the
effectiveness, after the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement went
into effect.
Others from the administration in this room have said,
``Well, there is not necessarily a relationship between trade
deficits and the loss of jobs.'' And, rather than let you
repeat that canard, I will simply go on to Assistant Secretary
Countryman. But there is not a foreign service in the world
that is not ten times more dedicated to exports than our State
Department. And there is not a foreign service in the world
that doubts that trade deficit leads to job losses in their own
country. The State Department is alone in its approach to
trade.
Assistant Secretary Countryman, if I may quote your
testimony, you say it takes some time to resolve the technical
issues in the 123 agreement. The problem or the sticking point
is whether there will be advance consent rights regarding the
enrichment and reprocessing of U.S. fuel or, that is to say,
U.S.-origin fuel and fuel that has gone through American
reactors. Is that accurate? Can you comment on how the United
States intends to address the enrichment and reprocessing in
123 agreements with not only Korea but Vietnam, Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, and others?
I realize that you don't want to negotiate in public, but
you are part of a democracy. And Americans would like to know
what your position is going to be.
Mr. Countryman. Well, you are right on several points. I
wouldn't like to negotiate the entire agreement here in public.
You are also correct that advance consent on use of U.S.-
supplied materials and technology for enrichment and
reprocessing is an important issue in this agreement. I remain
convinced that this issue, like everything else that we are
discussing within the agreement, is susceptible to the kind of
solution that careful, patient, economic, technical analysis
will allow us to achieve. And that is exactly the purpose of
the joint fuel cycle study that we initiated 2 years ago that
will run for 10 years and that will serve as the basis for
important joint decisions that we will make about future fuel
cycle in Korea.
Mr. Sherman. So that study will be done when?
Mr. Countryman. 2021.
Mr. Sherman. So you are seeking an extension for just 2
years.
Mr. Countryman. Yes.
Mr. Sherman. So you will be able to solve the problem when
you get the study results in 2021, but you are asking for a 2-
year extension? Enlighten me on the math of that.
Mr. Countryman. Certainly.
Mr. Sherman. Are you going to be back here every 2 years
for another 2-year extension?
Mr. Countryman. God forbid. We are----
Mr. Sherman. How long have you been working on this? You
have run out of time. You need another 2 years. How is it
going?
Mr. Countryman. We have been negotiating for 3 years. And I
think it is going well, but I will be more----
Mr. Sherman. You have been negotiating for 3 years, and you
need another 2 years. There are very few times where an
argument lasts 5 years and it is described as ``going well.''
But I hope you can get it done in 2 years.
Mr. Countryman. I will not characterize it as an argument,
sir. It is complex, without question.
Mr. Sherman. Difference in approach. Okay. I yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen,
for your testimony this afternoon. I want to follow up on a
little bit of your earlier answers to my colleagues' question
over here.
Let me ask you, have recent provocations by North Korea
affected our relationship with South Korea? And if so, how?
Mr. Zumwalt. I think, if anything, it has only strengthened
both sides' recognition that we need to work together very
closely, both in order to deter provocations but also to forge
the right kind of diplomatic strategy that may begin to have an
impact on North Korea.
Mr. Castro. Sir?
Mr. Countryman. Nothing to add.
Mr. Castro. And with respect to the 123 agreements, can you
describe how they advance the administration's goal of
nonproliferation, essentially how these agreements make the
United States safer?
Mr. Countryman. It is the longstanding policy of the United
States, successive United States, administration, I think,
given extra emphasis by President Obama and consistently
supported by a strong majority in Congress to combat the
proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world and
specifically to discourage the spread of enrichment and
reprocessing technology that are the technical basis for
development of nuclear weapons. That remains our policy today.
In order to achieve that policy, we employ, in cooperation
with partners around the world, a wide variety of tools. We
rely, for example, upon the nuclear suppliers' group, that
voluntary grouping of nuclear-capable nations that have reached
agreement on what they will and won't export to different
partners around the world.
We rely also upon the free market around the world in order
to provide a reliable supply of fuel for nuclear power plans.
And we seek to supplement that with fuel banks located in the
United States and in Russia to guarantee against any
deficiencies in the market so that there is no reasonable
economic incentive for a country to develop a new enrichment
capability. And one of the tools we use as well is, of course,
the nuclear cooperation agreements, 123 agreements, by which
the United States not only establishes its presence in the
international markets but also is able to exert a benign
influence upon states in order to further discourage the spread
of such enrichment and reprocessing technology. And, taken
together, we think that these have been successful in
discouraging the spread of enrichment and reprocessing
technology.
Mr. Castro. And there are 25 or so agreements across the
world? Is that right?
Mr. Countryman. I think that is about right. I will count
them up again for you.
Mr. Castro. Sure. Oh, that is fine. That is fine. I think
that is what it is.
Mr. Countryman. 24.
Mr. Castro. 24. And what has been the effect on American
industry----
Mr. Countryman. Yes.
Mr. Castro [continuing]. Because of these agreements?
Mr. Countryman. Well, when we are successful, as we
generally have been, in concluding nuclear cooperation
agreements, 123 agreements, it gives a very competitive
American industry the ticket to go in and to persuade other
countries, whether their utilities are private or public, of
the important safety and economic benefits of U.S.-supplied
equipment. So it has enabled us to compete successfully around
the world in a variety of countries.
That said, the world is more and more competitive in this
field. The United States has to do more in order to maintain
its competitiveness with other countries. And we are committed
to doing that.
Mr. Castro. Thank you. I yield back my time, sir.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back. We have no
additional questioners. The chair and I have to go back to
Judiciary for the markup, so we won't go into a second round
this afternoon.
We thank the gentlemen for their testimony. Members,
without objection, will have 5 days to supplement their
statements or ask questions.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to
commend our two witnesses for their participation in this
afternoon's hearing. I deeply appreciate their understanding of
the issues that we have dealt with this afternoon. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. If there is no further
business to come before the subcommittees, we are adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]