Subscribe
E-Paper
The following is an edited transcript of an interview with former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Harry Harris, in Jan. 20, his last day in office. ― ED.
Q: What have been the most memorable things, good and bad, during your time in Korea?
A: Thank you for starting out with an easy question. I want to give some textures to the answer.
I think the most memorable things occurred in their political, in their historical, in their cultural counterparts.
Politically, clearly the most memorable thing was interactions with North Korea ― the North-South summits, the U.S.-DPRK summits.
I wasn't here during the Singapore summit. But I was here during the Hanoi summit and during what we call a snap summit in Panmunjeom.
I went to Panmunjeom with President Trump, President Moon and their respective teams.
It was remarkable to me to see that in person. To be an even very small part of that was very memorable.
So that's in the political bit.
I think historical but most memorable aspect in my time here was being here in 2020 during the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War.
Watching that whole year unfold with all of commemorative activities, despite COVID that the Korean government did to honor the Korean War veterans ― not only from the United States but also from all other sending states ― to celebrate the beginning of the war.
I think it would be a big celebration in three years _ 2023 _ to commemorate the armistice.
And it will make up for inability to honor in person for many of the Korean War veterans because of COVID.
So I think 2023 will be a big year.
But to be here in 2020 and watch how the Korean government remembers sacrifices of the troops, men and women in 1950 from the sending states in general.
COVID-19, of course, I will always remember being the ambassador during the outbreak of the pandemic to see how the Republic of Korea responded to the COVID-19 pandemic was extraordinary.
To me, to be a part of it, to benefit from it personally as well as watching Korea reach out and help other countries and how you managed it yourselves in Korea was dramatic.
You taught the world that you could have a national election with the biggest turnout in decades, despite COVID-19 and no spike in infections after all.
You taught the world how to do it and you helped us how do that.
We had our election commission learn from your election officials how to do it.
And in November we had the largest presidential election turnout in history.
It was safely conducted and there was no spike in infections after the election.
So there was that, the generosity of the Korean people and the Korean government during the pandemic.
So in the Korean War sense, we had all the masks and stuff that the Ministry of Patriots and Veteran Affairs (MPVA) provided to not only American Korea War veterans but also to global veterans.
The Korean industries that are based in the United States … It was remarkable to watch their help for the communities which they operate.
Their outreach to the American communities and what they did for them during the pandemic.
Everything associated with pandemic is terrific in a sense of how Korea responded and how Korea helped others.
And in a cultural box, to be here during the Academy Awards last year and watch "Parasite" win, anything with BTS, seeing "The Man Standing Next" movie, all these things…
We talked about the K-wave which is still launching onward.
Now we have K-trot. I am trying to understand what K-trot is but it looks like a lot of fun.
There's a food piece in that. Kimchi, which is Korean delicacy and staple originated in Korea. I'm addicted.
Learning how to make kimchi, learning how to make jjapaguri all the fun here at the Habib House with mixing drinks using Korean ingredients … all these things are cultural parts of how exciting and how fun it is in Korea.
So these are the kinds of a long answer to a very simple question that I wanted to give some texture.
I don't want to dwell on the bad memories past. I thought I was mistreated in some areas, because of my Japanese mother.
I think that's unfair and that's unprofessional but now that's a small area of discomfort for me compared to the overwhelming positive sources of compliments I received from the Korean people and the Korean government and to be honest, with the Korean media as well.
There are clearly disagreement inside the alliance but the alliance itself is strong, ironclad and holding. It's a model for others to see.
Q: Do you think the ROK-US alliance is better now than before you came? If so, how? If not, how?
A: I want to be careful about how I answer that because I don't want to have anyone think that I'm trying to take credit for something that I have nothing to do with.
I think the alliance is strong.
I think it is ironclad. I think it has been ironclad in the past, now and will remain in the future.
I've been lucky enough to be a part of a great team at the U.S. embassy, working with a great team on the ROK side and with a great team at the U.S. Forces Korea to keep the alliance strong ironclad and foremost in a relationship between our countries.
Q: Would you advise President-Elect Biden to continue from the basis laid by the Singapore summit?
A: Let me be clear on one part. I am not going back the United States to advise President Biden and his team.
If the question is what I think about the Singapore summit as a basis for the new administration' start, that's a great question.
But I am not going to advise President Biden or talk about.
I believe personally as Stephen Biegun spoke when he was here and spoke to our side.
I associate myself, to use a diplomatic term which I did not understand when I came here.
But I associate myself with Biegun's remarks.
I believe the Singapore summit is a good starting point to continue the dialogue between the United States and North Korea and the trilateral dialogue with the United States, South Korea and North Korea.
But whether the Biden administration does that or not is up to them.
And we won't know that at least until tomorrow 2 a.m. in Korea, till noon (EST) in the United States.
But I believe personally that the Singapore summit is the starting point.
So I associate myself with that aspect of Stephen Biegun's remarks with our side.
Q: Should Biden prioritize North Korea in his foreign affairs objectives?
A: I believe North Korea is one of the top issues facing the Biden administration.
The world is a complex place. A lot of issues are out there.
But I think it is among the top issues that will confront the Biden administration and I believe they are already affected by these issues.
To the specific question of what the Biden administration should prioritize. I don't know. I am not in the Biden administration.
But I believe that North Korea should be an issue that tops their list.
Q: The Obama administration was ineffective and then President Trump came into office.
A: Let me say that I agree with you that the Trump administration prioritized North Korea with a willingness for innovative unorthodox, outside-of-the box thinking about that changed the dynamic here on the Korean Peninsula and Asia region.
That said, let me address the first part of the question. I believe that with North Korea, Biden administration's Asia team as we know it now should give you a complex sense that they understand Korea well, they are experts on issues here and many of them have served either here, many of them served in jobs that touched on the issues of interests.
So I believe the Biden team is ready to confront the issue with North Korea, the issue of China and other issues out here.
And I'm optimistic about that.
Q: Could you elaborate on your role in improving the U.S.-North Korea relationship, as you mentioned as one of the two "highlights" during your term?
Well, working with the U.S. National Security Council and the whole team working with Stephen Biegun and his team, facilitating their visits here, working with the South Korean government and all the issues that go back and forth and watching Seoul in preparation for the summits in Hanoi and Panmunejom and the aftermath of all of these.
All these were parts of what the U.S. Embassy routinely does and I was honored and pleased to be a part of that.
Q: What is your latest view on the rivalry between the U.S. and China?
A: That's a pretty broad question.
Let me try to talk about it specifically in relation with the Korean War.
If that doesn't scratch your itch then we can go over issues with China
I try to be factual about everything I say. I try to live with my promises and I try to be factual.
The facts are the facts.
And I think that the fact is that North Korea, with significant help from the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, invaded South Korea in 1950.
I don't know how you can paint that in any other way than the truth.
North Korea invaded South Korea. And the Republic of Korea stood steadfast with its allies ― the United States and the other sending states. They pushed back the invasion from the North which was supported by the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union.
China can try to tell the world, they can try to tell South Korea that you are wrong about your own cultural heritage, whether we are talking about kimchi, whether we are talking about hanbok clothes or whether we are talking about the Korean War.
But history is simply factual in this case. We're not talking about history that is 10,000 years, 20,000 years ago. We are talking about history that's 71 years ago.
The PRC can say it's your imagination; that China was attacked; but in fact it was South Korea that was attacked. So that's my view on China and the recent history of the Korean Peninsula and China.
Q: In that context, could you understand the Moon Jae-in administration's position not to join Quad?
A: I think that's a question you are going to have to ask the Moon Jae-in administration.
So what I've said in the past when I was in the PACOM is that Quad is currently the four countries involved in it.
I don't know how familiar you are with college football. We have these conferences we have the Big 10, Big 12, Southeastern Conference (SEC) and so on.
Today Big 10 has 14 teams and the Big 12 has 10 teams.
So there's nothing that says Quad has to have four teams.
The Quad can be more than four teams.
But here's a thing about Quad. There's no one in charge in football
Like the SEC, the United States doesn't own Quad.
It's not a ratified treaty or an alliance or anything like that.
It's a group of four currently like-minded countries that have a shared view of threats they face and have a shared understanding of each other.
So with that, there's nothing that says Korea could not be a part of Quad or not.
The United States did not issue an invitation to the Republic of Korea to join Quad.
Quad was a natural grouping of ― currently there are four countries ― that have a shared view of threats.
So is there a room for other countries? For Sure.
Should Korea join Quad? I don't know.
Q: If Korea joined the Quad, would it help to better block China?
A: Let me answer the question differently because it is not about the Quad and China that answers that question.
I believe the PRC is a malign influence in the region and the world.
And I believe that it's important for countries, democratic countries, to call out China when China does things that are contrary to democratic accepted rules to the world.
I would hope that Korea will join us and other countries ― I did not say the Quad ― us and other countries, and holding China accountable for its actions in the South China Sea, in Western China, in Hong Kong and in other places.
Q: What do you think of the Trump supporters' storming of the Capitol?
A: Let me talk in general, I tweeted about it.
It was an attack on the United States Capitol. It was a storming of the United States Capitol.
And it was a despicable, unacceptable act by people who sought to change the democratic nature of our elections and of our government.
So I've gone on record as saying that it's it was a despicable act. I think it was an assault to our democracy.
But I think it also demonstrated, as bad as it looked on television and in the media, as bad as it was; I think it demonstrated the resilience of American democracy.
And I believe that we will come out of this stronger than we were on the 6th of January.
I think our democracy will be stronger strategically.
Tactically we now more fully understand these divisions that exist in the United States. I think everyone actually has that.
These divisions are deep.
And the attack on the capitol highlights, underscore those divisions.
But the good news is that democracy will, and can come out stronger.
We know who the perpetrators were, we know who most of these were.
And in that sense I am encouraged.
I think it also demonstrates the value of leadership. I think the Biden team is ready to take this on.
And I think we will march forward.
Q: Were you disappointed with your commander in chief?
A: I not going to comment on my commander in chief. I still work for him.
Q: How was it to be a general-turned-ambassador?
A: I was an admiral under President Trump also, so there's no difference from that perspective.
But there's a world of difference between being an admiral and an ambassador.
I spent my career, my life, 40 years in the Navy in the military and I spent two-and-a-half years as an ambassador.
It was a complete sea change ― that's a military term ― a sea change of difference being a military officer and trying to be a diplomat.
And I emphasize trying to be a diplomat.
But there are a couple of fundamental truths for the past two-and-a-half years.
One is the military has no monopoly on courage.
The military has no monopoly on dedication.
The military has no monopoly on talent.
The U.S. diplomatic corps ― I think it is reflective of your government's diplomatic corps as well ― is courageous.
I met some people when I was at the Blue House who had served as a commander of a provincial reconstruction team (PRT) in Afghanistan.
The military has no monopoly on courage.
They are incredibly talented people in our diplomatic corps. There's the U.S. diplomatic corps, there's the Korean diplomatic corps ― they are vastly, widely, hugely talented.
So certainly there's no monopoly on dedication.
So when I went from wearing a uniform to a tie, I've been asked the question at many different venues on what's the difference between being a military commander and being an ambassador.
And I think the Korean word for ambassador ― daesa ― says it all.
If you look at the term "daesa" and break it down, it really means a big message, which is what an ambassador is, the envoy of the president.
If you take a general or admiral or commander and you break it down.
It means something completely different, it means someone who commands forces, who commands soldiers, commands troops, commands sailors.
So it's a completely different construct.
And the Korean language that derives from the Chinese explains it quite elegantly in my view.
Q: Do you think ROK and U.S. should have joint military exercises as they were the past?
A: I think personally as a former military commander it is imperative. It is imperative that we train together.
But I don't think there is a separation between my view of joint military exercises for example and President Moon's view.
I think both views are consistent.
There is nothing wrong with coordinating with each other and having some kind of dialogue with North Korea. All of that is important and completely appropriate.
As we continue to exercise together, the U.S. and ROK, so that we can be in a position to strengthen this country, if we have to.
Hopefully we don't have to. But ultimately if we have to, we need to train.
That's why large-scale joint military exercises are important.
Dialogue with North Korea is also important, whether it's North-South dialogue, whether it's U.S.-DPRK dialogue.
But it's always better to negotiate from a position strength.
Q: What are the chances of North Korea collapsing in its own way and disappearing?
A: I was wrong before. In 2017, I could not have imagined in 2017 when I was the PACOM commander that we would have a Singapore summit and Panmunjeom summit, that the United States would shake hands with the chairman, now the general secretary, of North Korea, step across the line at Panmunjeom and vice versa.
I could not have imagined that in 2017 when there were missile launches, nuclear tests and all that.
So I was wrong before.
But I believe that we should not count on the collapse of North Korea.
I think they're doing okay. There's challenges up there but I don't see the likelihood in several years.
Q: Do you think North Korea is serious about giving up its nuclear weapons if the terms are met?
A: I don't know. I think it's worth trying to find out. It's worth continuing to try to have a meaningful dialogue in the negotiations with North Korea.
The nuclear program on the one hand, and a broader economic future.
They can have a broader economic future with their people and I know that. But they have to do something about the nuclear program. It is entirely possible.
I don't know if they have the courage to walk through that open door that President Moon and President Trump have left for them.
We'll see and we'll find out in a day or two when the Biden administration comes in.
I believe that opportunity has been laid at the feet of Chairman Kim and it's up to him to walk through that door that is open for him.
Q: What is your assessment of Kim Jong-un?
A: I met Kim Jong-un at Panmunjeom.
I believe that Kim Jong-un is in complete control of his country and he has total power.
So he has the intelligence, understands the whole situation
But whether he has the courage to act on it and usher in an era of a brighter economic future for North Korea is another question.
