Transcripts For CSPAN3 Public Affairs Events 20161019

Korea . Mark, as you know well, if you look at our two alliances particularly in northeast asia, japan, and north and south korea, they are the most generous providers of countries that we station troops in. Those negotiations are always difficult. I would say with japan its about 5 billion. Korea less. Obviously much smaller country. Smaller footprint. I would say that the calculus by which these decisions and agreements are examined has to be looked in a more holistic way. I believe the four deployment of our forces in asia is a multiplier for the United States. We do not necessarily do this to protect and serve our allies. It integrates us in a way that frankly puts feet and boots and sailors on the ground and in the water in a manner that serves the Strategic Interests of the United States. So i think applying a very narrow green eye shade calculus of the kind mr. Trump has suggested i do not believe is in the best strategic interest of the United States, and it misses the entire role of the partnership between the United States and those countries Going Forward. Mr. Chairman, do we need to adjust the burden sharing or take a fundamental relook at it . Again, what i said earlier. You go back and you take a look at the role and how that has evolved over time. In the 1960s, there was probably a burden sharing agreement that was necessary and appropriate. In 1990 there was another one and that has adjusted. In 2016, 2017, theres nothing wrong with going back and reassessing it, and it will be a holistic approach recognizing all the various factors that go into it, the benefits for korea and the benefits to the United States and the benefits to the region. Yeah, it will be a holistic approach, but what donald trump is recognizing is that theres a responsibility that we play as a Global Leader, and there are investments that we will make in that role for Global Leadership. But at the same time, there are responsibilities to american taxpayers and to American Workers to make sure that we create an environment and a structure with our allies that does not that is fair to our taxpayers and to our workers. I drive a car. My wife drives a car. It was made in korea, all right . We have strong interrelated agreements on trade and National Security. But if american thats why it is so important to get these relationships on burden sharing in that right. Because if its perceived and if its the reality that American Workers who are competing on a regular basis with korea and competition is fine. Competition is good. But if the added cost of building that car in america includes providing subsidies that go beyond our global role and those types of things, it puts American Workers at a disadvantage. Just like leaders in asia have a responsibility to their citizens to make sure that they provide a safe and secure environment. They also have a responsibility to their workers and their taxpayers to make sure that theyve negotiated fair agreements that enable them to be competitive. And that is the same responsibility that donald trump has to American Workers and to american taxpayers. And when that is in balance between korea and the United States of america, then we have a good agreement. And we have an agreement that works for both of us and can move forward. Thats all donald trump is saying. Yes, i will reassess those agreements, and i will ensure that they are fair because i have a responsibility and america cannot be in a position where we have slow economic growth, we are not seeing the kind of rising wages, and we are not seeing the kind of worker participation that we would like to have in america. And one of those reasons is because, whether its korea, whether its japan, or other places around the globe, is were carrying a disproportionate cost of doing that because it puts america at a disadvantage and other parts of the extremely important relationships that we have. Yeah, you would expect the leaders in asia to do exactly the same thing that we in america are asking donald trump to do. Okay. I actually like very much the way the congressman has laid this out in terms of the need to constantly reevaluate. In fact, thats the purpose of government, whether in the executive or the legislative branches. Youve got to in a very measured, careful way examine does this work. And i think they may have different approaches, but clearly secretary clinton and mr. Trump both believe that any agreement, anything that the United States does abroad, has to be in the best interest of the American People and American Workers, so i think we agree on that. The one thing, congressman, i actually listened pretty carefully to mr. Trump. I actually do not hear him saying what youre saying. I hear you talking i think in a very responsible way about needing to evaluate and be careful in the process. I hear more sweeping statements. Were going to put sanctions on. I dont hear language that suggests a process of evaluation. I hear much more ive made these decisions. Im going to do this on day one. Things that i think would be very destabilizing. I dont hear mr. Trump talking about our allies in a way i recognize how you talk about allies. It seems more negative and more competitive. So i wished that the way that youre describing the overall views are the way that he was talking about it, but i dont hear that approach generally. You and i have been in the part of the world and developed political speak. For me, its been about 20 years and its maybe been a little bit longer on your part, but weve both been involved in a significant part of our professional careers involved in politics. We are perhaps a little bit more sensitive to exactly how the words come out and the order. Sometimes people the flip side of that is sometimes people will give the political answer and you in the audience will be scratching your heads and youll be going exactly what did that person just say. Theyve been talking for a couple minutes, and i didnt understand exactly what they were pointing to. Donald trump maybe speaks with some clarity on some of these issues that make people in the Political Class a little bit nervous, all right . But donald trump also comes from the Business World. And donald trump knows very, very well when youre negotiating a contract with a major contract, youre never in a position to go in and dictate the terms to anybody, that its a process of negotiations. You may come in with certain expectations. Someone else may come in with other expectations, but donald trump very much understands the art of the deal, how you get from point a to point b. And you dont do it by dictates and the same way we have done it in the Business World from point a to point b. Its a collaborative process. Its a negotiation process. And its a process that at the end both parties believe that they its beneficial to them and only then do they have a contract and agreement to move forward. Having done that in the Business World for years and years, donald trump fully understands thats exactly the same type of process that youre going to go through when youre working and trying to come to agreements on a lot of these issues. And the only thing is, yeah, youre right. He doesnt have the 20 years of developing how to talk or code language that sometimes comes out a little bit more coarse than what some of us in the political world might be comfortable with. Let me finish up my round with a couple of questions about north korea. Ive got three. Let me start with this one. How would a clinton or Trump Administration deal with north Koreas Nuclear Weapons Program . Is a new approach called for beyond sanctions . You want to start . Everybody recognizes the u. S. And our friends in the region recognize our bipartisan approach in the last couple of years has not developed the kind of results we want. We now have north korea with Nuclear Capabilities, speculation that they have miniaturized this capability so they can put it on top of a Ballistic Missile, and enhanced Ballistic Missile capabilities. None of us wanted that. None of us expected that to happen, but it has. Thats now the new reality. And so you really have to go back now and answer at least a couple of questions and this is the process the Trump Administration will go in early on in its presidency. What are our objectives now that north korea has a Nuclear Capability . What is the objective of us and our allies . Is it to have them somehow take that capability away from them . Is it to maintain it and keep it right where it is and not enable it to go much further . But clearly the role of sanctions as they have been administered in the past have worked. I think sanctions moving forward with what has happened with iran create just a huge pathway for iran, for north korea, to evade sanctions because of whatever relationship because of its relationship with iran. So this is going to be this is very, very difficult, and it has become more difficult in the last couple of years because of the progress north korea has made and some of the decisions that the United States has made in other parts of the world. And this is why you have to have this joining together in these discussions to identify exactly what the next steps will be and what the objective will be. Theres much in that i agree with. I think thats a very wise answer across the board in terms of the challenge that north korea presents. I would take the view that the United States has to do a number of things right off the bat. Most important most importantly is to reaffirm the strength of our alliances and our posture in asia as a whole. The most dangerous thing that could occur is to give any indication to provocative leadership in north korea that the United States was in some way waivering. The idea of being a stable partner is an essential feature of whats going to be necessary as we deal with a leadership in north korea thats prepared to take real risks. I also think it requires deep consultations with south korea. This is their peninsula. We need to ensure that anything we do is coordinated closely and that south korea has a deep stake in steps that we would take subsequently. I would be of the view that the initial focus should be almost exclusively on tightening the sanctions regime on north korea and to take steps that send a very clear message that the testing of Nuclear Weapons, the most recent tests of Ballistic Missiles i agree with the congressman. The miniaturization program is one of the emanating features. We have to regard that as an extraordinarily serious matter, and we also have to realize that our previous experiences have not been successful with regard to inhibiting north korean decisions. I think at the center of this is a different kind of conversation with china. So i would say the almost exclusive economic and commercial partner of north korea is china. China has played a remarkable role in facilitating some kinds of interactions, and we have to go directly to china and make clear that we want to work with you on some of these steps in terms of financial sanctions and the like. But if you have inhibitions about working with us, were going to be prepared to take these steps alone. And we have to be very clear to china that the developments in north korea are such that when the congressman was talking about our primary responsibility, our primary responsibility is the wellbeing of the American People. Whats happening in north korea are steps that not only threaten the region, but potentially could threaten the United States over time. So it is incumbent on the next president of the United States, who i believe secretary clinton is well positioned for this, so form that partnership, to make that case to china, and to take those steps to make clear that the path north korea is on is unacceptable. Now, i think thats the first step. A lot of people want to then talk about well, lets then talk about the negotiating paradigm that follows. Lets wait on that. Lets focus now on the activation of a much more engaged purposeful sanctions regime that sends an unmistakable message to north korea. And lets remember the steps that they have taken are not just provocative from our perspective, but the most recent tests of missiles were launched during the g20 in china, which was an enormous embarrassment to chinese friends. So we have to make clear whats going on in north korea not only bad for the region, but bad for china as a whole. The positive here is whats changed in the last several years is relations between south korea and china have improved. The United States supports that process, and ultimately the hope will be that china comes to recognize that they are aligned with the wrong korea, the korea that is not serving their best Strategic Interests. And they have a much better pathway forward working constructively with seoul. Its very challenging. Its very complex. It requires partnership and steadiness with our friends in asia, but it will be in asia pretty much job one for any new administration that comes to power in january. Let me follow up a little bit on that. North korea said repeatedly and loudly it will never give up its Nuclear Weapons. I believe you said there are options or a freezer cap. Do you see us in a position of negotiating a freezer cap rather than complete militarization . Thats why i said you need to outline what your objective is. Once you outline with your allies what the objective is, if the objective is to rid the peninsula of Nuclear Weapons, that leads to a set of strategies im not sure theres a coherent set of strategies someone could outline that could get you there. If you say its a cap or a containment, thats the process that needs to take place right now. Personally, i cannot imagine accepting an away station or agreement where we could cap north Korean Nuclear abilities. I believe the basis of the sixparty arrangement has been a verifiable elimination of Nuclear Capabilities in north korea. In addition, the other issue we have to be highly attentive to is the potential proliferation risks that north korea provides. So we, again mark, i think we can all agree on this. We have our work cut out for us. Ultimately though, the northeast Asian Community has to be much firmer and clearer about why its in the best Strategic Interests of all the countries involved to see north korea backtrack substantially on the steps they have taken over the last several years. And thats a significant change of policy because for the last number of years were not and its hard, okay . Youre talking about a country thats been moving forward steadily on this path at a quicker pace. Theres one strategy that says, man which im not sure thats in place right now. How do we just stop them right where they are . Its a whole other thing that then says, wait a minute, halleluj hallelujah, we have a moment where we have got them to stop, but what steps do you put in place that says, by the way, roll back all the progress youve made in the last number of years . Youre right. Whoever is the next president has a very tough assignment handed to them. Okay. Ive got one final question. Then we have a half hour left for the audience. My last question is some commentators believe history shows there cannot be a resolution of a court issue without a summit meeting. Under what circumstances would President Trump or president clinton meet with kim jongun . What im frankly most focused on right now is a different kind of summit, which i hope will be a summit between the first summit of its kind between a a woman leader of south korea and the United States, which would be frankly a seminole event and hopefully will take place as soon as possible. So im much more focused on ensuring that the partnership, the strength, the durability, the trust that has developed between the United States and south korea continues. And frankly, i had a lot of conversations with south korean friends. This is no time to rest on our laurels. Weve done a lot well together. I think both countries opinion polls have never been higher about south korea, about the United States, and the United States about south korea. We have worked together in so many different ways. The key is not to rest, but to set even higher goals to continue up the summit, up the mountain. And that would be our expectation Going Forward. I believe that securing the ramparts of that relationship, mark, is the essential feature of anything as we go forward. As ive said, my primary focus would be on orchestrating the surrounding states in a way that sends an unmistakable message across the board in terms of financial sanctions, other u. N. Sanctions and the like, that what north korea has done is unacceptable. I cant imagine any set of circumstances in the short or intermediate future that would see the United States that would see President Trump in a summit meeting with a leader of north korea. Okay. Good succint answer. Okay, now well turn to the audience. Well start here. Maam . This question is for secretary campbell. You earlier said that if there are not tensions with china in some areas, then somebody isnt doing their job. Then you also said that we need to work with china to implement much tougher sanctions on north korea. But considering that rougher seas are predicted for u. S. chinese relations, how do we address chinese concerns about a reunified korea under seoul leadership while tensions with the United States continue to worsen in order to get china to take a more aggressive stand on north korea . Its a good question. Theres much thats wrapped up in this. I would simply say in terms of the relationship between the United States and china we, the United States, has been blessed with a number of different kinds of relationships, but basically weve had two different kinds of big relationships. Weve had very close allied relationships with strong cooperation, and then weve had relations with a country like the soviet union deeply antagonistic, right . China represents a new kind of relationship for the United States that will be very difficult for us Going Forward. And i think we just need to recognize that because it will embody elements of necessary inevitable purposeful cooperation. But the most important thing is to be honest about those areas where we tend to disagree and where we have problems. Confront them, try to address them honestly, and avoid circumstances where we can have mistakes or miscalculations that spiral out of control. Thats going to be difficult, but its going to be the necessary challenge of the 21st century. The chinese want to avoid instability in north korea. They want to avoid refugees or other things that could cause problems for their own country. I think we understand that more generally. I still believe much short of a scenario that you have laid out its possible for the United States and china to set very clear parameters of what is unacceptable for north korea. And i believe that there is leverage that china has not used that they need to use that is in their best Strategic Interests as well that falls far short of these scenarios that some describe associated with uncertainty or instability on the Korean Peninsula. If i could just add, its a great question and i love the word tension. If you go to m. I. T. , you can talk about it its management theory. Its a business theory that the relationships that are the healthiest relationships are those that have tension in them. Its the kind of relationship and i want to say it that a very positive way, but International Relations the relationship where you have some tension where partners are pushing each other and theyre challenging each other to make sure things work for both parties, that its a dynamic relationship. Thats a great relationship because it says youre being open and honest and youre willing to put energy into the relationship. In the Business World, thats a very healthy relationship. In foreign affairs, it is a very healthy relationship. You dont want to go where the rubber band, where theres no energy in it at all. It just dies. Its a company that has no energy or tension in it. It dies. The other thing you have to worry about is you dont manage the tension properly and you pull it too far apart and the rubber band snaps. Thats the kind of relationship that you need to have i think in international affairs, and those are the most comfortable not necessarily the most comfortable, but the most effective relationships. And this is how were going to manage through a lot of these types of challenges that we face by engaging other people in a healthy debate and a healthy discussion to move forward. So tension in and of itself is not negative. It can be a very positive force moving forward. Im a a professor at georgetown. I think we have all talked about it, but i want to be a little more specific. The last three years, north korea has been pretty much unconstrained in its prediction of plutonium and highly enriched uranium as really the hard parts of a nuclear weapon. We heard in this room just a few months ago Defense Intelligence agency analysts saying they probably have about 20 weapons now and theyre working toward about 100 weapons in the near future. In that context, are we correctly changing our posture in south korea to defend south korea . I ask that because the last ten years weve been building this new base. 5 billion from u. S. Taxpayer money, 5 billion from korean taxpayers money, concentrating all of our forces. From a layperson, it looks like to me were just creating a target. Is that the right kind of approach or do we need to radically change our defense posture maybe to be much more provocative against a Nuclear Armed competitor there . This is why youve got the angst in asia today, because of the significant process that north korea has made in both of those areas. And our strategy, the combined strategies, have not evolved to take into account the new reality. And so north korea just continues moving down this path, and you havent seen a recalibration. And that will be there are enough things to focus on at National Security right now when mr. Trump takes office in january, but this will be this will be pushing for that reassessment to respond to what weve seen. And that has not been a Proactive Initiative by the United States and our allies to address exactly those kinds of questions. So no, the specifics arent right there because, number one, the u. S. Cant dictate and we cant come up with specific steps at this point until you have the collaborative process. So thanks, bill, for the question. I appreciate it. Look, i would simply say that i believe the deterrent statements, capabilities, and intent of the United States on the Korean Peninsula are unwavering and have been in place for decades, and i have very little doubt that they will continue Going Forward. In terms of our conventional capabilities, i think, as you know now well, there is no i want to be careful as we have discussed here theres no set of war plans that are subjected to more scrutiny, more innovation, than the particular capabilities, the joint capabilities, that have put in place on the Korean Peninsula. I can assure you that our capabilities involve manifest simply more than one base in south korea. We are able to articulate and activa activa activate capabilities from across the pacific to support our objectives on the Korean Peninsula. And i think a number of Senior Leaders in the United States have made clear our goal is to avoid a conflict, which would be deadly on the Korean Peninsula. But if that did come to pass, it would end unmistakably with the end of the north korean regime. And we have the capabilities jointly with south korea to absolutely ensure that outcome. Ultimately, the key here is to ensure that deterrence and our steps as a partnership are strong to deter any of those actions and also to explore Diplomatic Options if they surface. I would say in the current environment i see no sense that north korea is prepared to entertain the kind of agreement that will be necessary to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula in northeast asia. That again is going to require a substantial activation of the surrounding nations, who i believe all privately or publicly are deeply concerned by the provocative steps that north koreas taken. Well go to this side. Keep questions short, please. Im wondering if you can tell us a little bit you talked about Donald Trumps clarity and language and how that might be people in the Political Class might not be used to it. Can you tell us about his statements about japan and south korea having Nuclear Weapons . Could you clarify it, i guess . The clarity there is that is an issue that will be decided once korea, japan, and the United States identify what their objectives are going to be visavis north korea and the strategies and tactics that they are going to put in place to address that objective and state it very, very clearly that as we go into those discussions with south korea and japan that everythings on the table. Can i just say look, i accept theres often this difference between clarity and diplomacy. I think the congressman makes a point here, but there are also things that thats not the appropriate dividing line. The real issue here is this strategically wise. And i think it is undeniable that maybe in the heat of a campaign or in a circumstance where hes feeling some passion, i think mr. Trump has said some things that have been deeply unnerving in asia. And that if he went through with them, would not be in the best Strategic Interests of the United States. I appreciate the congressman saying, look, thats the starting point. I dont want to hurt anyones feelings and lets talk about it, but the problem is thats not what mr. Trump is saying. If he began the conversations the way the congressman has done, i think very effectively, i think most people would agree with that, but the bold statements about whether japan and south korea are our allies and friends, whats going on with Nuclear Weapons, tend to create more problems than just simply start a conversation. Prime minister abe appears ready to open up a major debate in japan about ratifying about revising japans 1947 constitution, a constitution that the United States basically fashioned after world war ii. And what we are hearing about proposed changes would include either a radical revision of or elimination of article 9 of the 1947 constitution, the socalled no war, no belligerent clause that the americans proposed in that constitution. Now if this kind of debate begins in japan, it will be controversial. The chinese and the South Koreans are going to react strongly to that kind of debate. However, a radical revision of article 9 or elimination of article 9 would open up for japan major options for military expansion, including a nuclear option. When this debate begins, given mr. Trumps call for japan to do more militarily to support the United States and also given the fact the Obama Administration two years ago quickly endorsed Prime Minister abes new collective selfdefense policy, do you think either one of your prospective president s would be willing to make american views known on the article 9 issue if this debate as likely begins to unfold in japan . A couple of things. Number one, japan has actually and Prime Minister abe is bringing up reinforces what he said at the u. N. A couple weeks ago saying it is time to reassess and put everything back on the table because of the lack of success we have had on the Korean Peninsula and iran and north korea. Thats one. Thats probably a much more dramatic statement than donald trump saying, maybe south korea and japan ought to move into a ought to have Nuclear Capabilities. The third point is we saw that he here. I think a donald Trump Administration would be very, very restrained in expressing our views on a debate thats going on internally in china. Excuse me, in japan. I think youve got to be very, very careful about that, and youre not ever sure when you insert yourself into someone elses internal policy debates as to whether that actually helps move the ball forward in the direction youd like it to go or whether it actually hurts, so i think wed be very, very restrained. I cant let this go, the comments about mr. Trump and potentially unsettling relationships with our allies because of some of the statements that hes made, because i think we have a very good example. And if im taking a look at people in asia and theyre wondering about the reliability of the United States visavis its allies, some of the things that have happened under president obama and secretary of state are much more concerning than what donald trump has said. In egypt, we have an ally who for 30 years, for 30 years, pretty much was a full partner with the United States in maintaining stability in the relationship with israel. When we were contemplating going into war in afghanistan and in iraq, said to the United States and i met with them and i listened to him and his intelligence folks, and they said, were not sure this is a good idea. And they went and outlined the reasons why they werent sure if this was a good idea. And as we walked out the door, mubarak and his staff indicated just remember that if you go to war in afghanistan, if you go to war in iraq, we maybe told you it wasnt a great idea, but we will support you. And they did everything we asked them to do, and we threw mubarak under the bus. In 2003, i was asked by a friend of mine on the house floor, pete, you want to go meet with gaddafi in libya. I said, no, not really. Thats not on my bucket list. And he said, no, serious. The Bush Administration is seeing the fruition of, you know, 30 to 35 years of consistent American Foreign policy of republicans and democrats, the same with mubarak, putting sanctions on the gaddafi regime and putting a tremendous amount of pressure and ostracizing them in the world. Were getting hints that maybe after republicans and democrats for that period of time were having a successful strategy he wants to flip sides. So we went. I met with him two more times after that. So in 2004, 2005, we achieved a bipartisan success of a longterm consistent American Foreign policy where we flipped gaddafi. He got rid of his Nuclear Weapons program. He paid reparations for the families of those who had paid a tremendous price because of his terrorist acts. Then for seven, eight years, he did everything that we asked him to do to fight radical jihadists, integrating our intelligence capabilities, and helping us confront, contain with the ultimate goal of defeating radical jihadist groups. In 2011, this administration flipped sides. Youve got a lot of people in the middle east who are wondering, i wonder how great this relationship is with the americans there. What did it really get gaddafi . In the end, it came back to bite mubar mubarak. I have to believe that there are other people around the world wondering how reliable is america as an ally. If were going to take a shot at some words that trump said that may have been less than diplomatic, its also important to take a look at what this administration has done to some of our friends who have stood by us side by side for a long time and see ultimately where we left them. Last ten minutes. If i could ask people to keep their questions short so we can try to keep more of them in. Yes, maam. Then ill go to the back. Right here. As we discussed so far, we enter a new reality where north korea has Nuclear Armed missiles that can endanger the United States. The reason why the preemptive strikes like military options, i think it may be because the United States are dealing with the north korean situation not as an asian policy, but as u. S. Old currency issues. Do you think that change is going to happen . I think increasingly the north korean challenge is not simply a regional challenge as you describe, but because of proliferation concerns it is a Global Challenge and because of some of the capabilities that you also described on the missile side and the ambitions they have outlined with respect to the United States. It is a direct challenge to the United States. It has to be looked at it through all of those lenses, and it should animate our attention our focus substantially in the time ahead. I believe it is not any one of those issues, but it is all of them together that unify each of the countries that surround north korea to take more activist stance. Its a global issue. Sure. Its very important the next president has to take a look at it as a National Security threat to us, the regional, but this is also a global issue because of the proliferation issue. Who might gain access one way or another to this capability from north korea is something that all of us at least need to be conscious of because that is a possibility that may occur sometime or it may be an issue that we confront sometime in the future. George bush, when he went into office on january of 2001, who would have thought that his presidency would have been dominated by al qaeda and an attack that happened nine months later after he got sworn in. President obama, secretary clinton, have faced challenges that were not anticipated when they came into office. A couple of weeks ago, someone asked me you could throw the north korean proliferation into here. When the next president is sworn in on january 20th, what is the issue that is going to develop during their administration that has not been talked about today . Thank you. Let me ask a question about the preemptive military action, the possibility. Its kind of very sensitive, but also very crucial at this point. Senator tim kaine during the last debate, he said the person should take the action to defend the u. S. On the imminent threat if you have to. And yesterday, Wendy Sherman said in korea that every single tool should be used to denuclearize north korea. In clinton campaign, the using of this preemptive military action is not inconceivable. I want to ask what is the opinion of secretary clinton on this issue, and also to the chairman during the first debate mr. Trump said nothing can be taken off the table to deal with north korea. Can i ask that that also include this kind of a preemptive military action towards north korea . Thank you. Look, i can just give you a very straightforward answer. I think the secretary and her team have made clear that north korea is an urgent matter that requires focused american attention working closely with allies and partners, number one. And number two, as secretary sherman, Vice President elect kaine, others have indicated, were not going to take any options off the table at this time. I think mr. Trump has been very, very clear about when it comes to threats to our National Security, whether its throughout the middle east or whether its in korea or whether its the continuing evolving threat from russia, that hell do two things. He wont take options off the table, and he wont really send a lot of clear signals to people about at least short and medium term objectives as to what we may be doing. Obviously, you have to establish parameters in terms of where your Foreign Policy is operating from and whats acceptable and whats not, but i think the statement, at least as we enter into the next set of negotiations with our friends in the region as to where were going to go, you know, all the options at least initially are going to be on the table. Yes, sir. To mr. Hoekstra, will donald trump increase south korea and japans Defense Budget . What specific role will the next administration ask of japan in the region . I think what mr. Trump has made clear both to those folks who work with us and have the military relationships thatexpe comprehensive review, to pay their fair share, that the United States taxpayers, the American Workers, cant be expected to pick up a disproportionate share of what Global Security requires. Were more than willing to pick up our fair share, and recognize that, you know, some of that comes with an additional costs of being a Global Leader and those types of things. But we cant we are not in a position to subsidize and pay for other Peoples National defense needs. And again, its the healthy relationship of you know, theres a tension in the relationship. If its saying, dont worry about it, well pay for it, im sorry, thats not a healthy relationship. If National Security and the priorities for korea and friends in other places in the world, threats they face, if theyre not willing to pay for it or they go into it and say, we dont have to worry about it, the United States is going to pay for it, that is not a healthy relationship. A healthy relationship is where we pick up our fair share with our goals and ovebjectives as t what we want to accomplish globally for National Security, and these countries will pick up their responsibilities. That is a healthy relationship because were both getting what were willing to pay for and what we are willing to invest for. If the criteria of the agreement is dont worry about it, we will pay for it, that is not a healthy arrangement. So thank you. I would say that the relationship between the United States and japan is going to take on added and increased significance in the Asia Pacific Region Going Forward and not just in the Asia Pacific Region. Glob globally. One of the countries that has supported our activities in the middle east is japan. We work with them on a global basis. I expect that to continue. We had a very good question about debates Going Forward in japan around National Security. I agree with the congressman that we have to tread very carefully with the democracy about how you communicate matters associated with Critical Issues around National Security. I will say these issues are controversial in japan. They are controversial in the region. Prime minister abe and his team have committed to strong consultations, active engagement with the public about the way forward. I think that is appropriate. And we would support that more generally. In terms of specific things, perhaps the most important thing that the United States will want to work with japan on is to ensure that japans economy continues its forward progression, the success of structural reforms, the socalled third arrow. I would like to see the japan relationship with china continue to improve. And i think we can all be ambitious about the prospects and possibilities of even tighter, closer coordination between japan, the United States, and north korea. For decades we would have said about the japan u. S. Relationship, there is no more important relationship bar none. I would say that relationship is more significant and important now than at any period during the cold war. And thats something that is i think deeply recognized by both the japanese and American People. Like south korea, attitudes in japan about the United States and viceversa, in the United States about japan, have never been more positive. We need to capitalize that, deepen our people to people exchanges, our understanding of our role, and recognize that japan will not only work with us in partnership, as they have done for decades, increasingly they will also demonstrate areas of an independent Foreign Policy. And as a mature nation, thats appropriate. And we support that. We have confidence in japan. Prime minister abe has done, in india, southeast asia, africa, recent trip to cuba, these are things that we support. I expect the u. S. japan relationship will continue to thrive. Would you have time for one more question. Here comes the microphone. From korea. How critical is the battery of deployment to u. S. Interests, to u. S. Interests . Is it that important . I think its important to south korea. My own personal view is that this is a decision primarily for south korea, and i think south korea has taken that decision. The United States supports it. We are facing a deeply provocative north korea with capabilities, missile capabilities that threaten south korea. This is an appropriate step, a step the United States supports, and were prepared to follow through on it. I think thats accurate. I think the other thing that you need to realize, as were talking about some of the challenges throughout asia and, you know, much of this discussion, appropriately, today has been focused on the Korean Peninsula, as you take a larger look, you also have to take a look, theres going to be another pressure starting to rear its ugly head, that is the pressure from the radical jihadist threat. In 2007, 2008, roughly 3300 people per year were dying as a result of the activities of radical jihadism. In 2015, that number is now approaching 30,000 people per year. That threat was initially limited and focused primarily in the middle east. Today its the middle east. Its northern africa. Its spreading down into, you know, other parts of africa. But its also spreading into asia in these types of things. This is going to make the situation more complicated. Again, it may be one of those issues that, you know, in 2018, 2019, people will be talking about, whoa, you know, this threat of radical islam in parts of asia may get to be more significant than what it is today. And so, you know, this is not just you know, the issues here in this part of the world are growing more complex and more deadly each and every year. Its again not because of its coming out of the middle east, but its coming excuse me, not that its coming out of asia, its coming because of actions in other parts of the world. And you cant view whats going on in asia in isolation. You have to take a look at whats going on in other parts of the world as well. I think were going to end on time. I wish we could all have this kind of thoughtful, insightful political dialogue. I find it very illuminating and instructive. Ill ask you to stay in place for a minute so our speakers can get to their next appointments. Before they go, i would like you to thank them in the traditional way. Thanks. [ applause ] [ room noise ] watch cspans live coverage of the third debate between Hillary Clinton and donald trump tonight. Our live debate preview from the university of nevada, las vegas starts at 7 30 p. M. Eastern. The briefing for the debate studio audience is at 8 30 p. M. Eastern, and the debate is at 9 30 p. M. Eastern. Stay with us for viewer reaction including your calls, tweets, and facebook postings. Watch the debate live or on demand using your desktop, phone, or tablet at cspan. Org. Listen with the free cspan radio app. Download it from the app store or google play. The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in penarodriguez v. Colorado. At issue is where the sixth amendment right to a trial by jury outweighs the rule that jury deliberations are confidential and that the court should make an exception because of racial bias. This is an hour. Well hear argument next in case 15606, penarodriguez versus colorado. Mr. Fisher . Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court, roughly half the trials in this country, from new york to california to south carolina, are already conducted under the rule we seek today, namely a requirement that judges consider racial bias when its offered to prove a violation to the sixth amendment right to an impartial jury. This court should require colorado to follow the same rule. Colorado already has a turnkey system for implementing. Colorado already has multiple exceptions to the principle of jury secrecy. So all colorado has to do is use that same system already in place to administer an exception for racial bias. What about religious bias . Same thing in this case, except its not you know, this is how mexicans act, this is how catholics or jews act. So theyre obviously guilty. Wouldnt that also come under your exception . Theres obviously, mr. Chief justice, frequently an overlap between race and religion. So for that reason, religion might be viewed very similarly. All right. That seems to be avoiding at which the question. Catholics. All the court needs to decide in this case today is race. No, i dont think thats fair. Once we decide race, this is not an equal protection case, its a sixth amendment case. We think invocation of race is an impermissible enough, i guess, that we will pierce the jury confidentiality. The next case is going to be religion. So if whatever we say on race is going to have to have either a