tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 17, 2014 6:30am-8:31am EST
>> coming up, our coverage of the british house of commons continues live with this week's right ministers questions. been a look at south korea's relationship with china, north korea and the united states. later we are live with federal reserve chair janet yellen was holding a news conference after today's federal open market committee meeting. >> and now live to london for british prime minister at question time. each week the house of commons is in session, we bring you prime minister david cameron taking questions from members of the house of commons of the house of commons live wednesday
morning's hear on c-span2. we invite your participation via twitter using hashtag pmqs. prior to question time members are finishing up other business. and now live to the floor of the british house of commons. >> to reduce the number of refugees attempting to fully their home countries. >> thank you. we rightly use development to fill up the institution and the conditions that minimize conflict to come instability that laypeople to becoming refugees and internally displaced in the first place. >> order. questions to the prime minister. >> number one, mr. speaker. >> prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house will join me in condemning the outrageous that shocked the world in recent days. >> here, here. >> the siege of the cap in sydney ended in tragedy but was
accompanied by heroism so typical of that great nation. we all grieve with you australians today. what happened several thousand miles away in a school in pakistan is utterly heartbreaking. a massacre of innocents which is left the world know. the world stands head bowed with pakistan today. words can convert but words cannot defeat them in a violence. so let this be the moment when the whole of pakistan, when every nation comes together and says enough, we will act together to defeat this evil in our midst. >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, i'm sure the whole house will wish to join in sending our warmest christmas wishes to all armed forces deployed across the work from a particular in the middle east, afghanistan and in west africa. we are forever indebted for the sacrifices they make on our behalf. >> here, here. >> missile-to-missile -foot by right honorable friend's comments on the eve of the atrocities, and also the best
wishes to our armed forces who may be serving abroad. today's unemployment figures showed with in the last quarter the southwest has the region with the largest increase in employment in the united kingdom. to continue to realize its full economic potential and to deliver the city deal, does my right honorable friend agree that plymouth needs a faster, better, more resilient railway line as laid out in the three-point plan which was in discussion last week with by right honorable friend? >> well, my honorable friend has campaigned over and over again for the important improvements in these railings and he knows what is being done to help the southwest in that regard. i received a presentation from the task force and we will take forward each of the three-point land in the work we do in future to make sure there's real resilience and better services for people in the southwest. on the issue of unemployment the figures in the west country are
welcome and his own constituency that claimant count has fallen by 42% since the election. and what these figures are shown nationally, employment up, unemployment down, the claimant count falling for the 25th consecutive month. and what i think is an important moment for our country is unemployment is now below 2 million wages are rising faster than inflation or something i'm sure that would be welcome across the house. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, i want to join the prime minister in paying tribute to those murdered in the appalling massacre in pakistan. even as we become accustomed to tragic events, this slaughter of innocent children in the classrooms has shocked the world. we stand in solidarity with the grieving families and the people of pakistan, and in the fight against terrorism. i also joined in condemning the terrorist attack in sydney and our condolences go to the families of those who died.
and to the australian people. i also, like the prime minister, pay tribute to all our troops serving around the world. they do our country proud and they showed the utmost courage and bravery. mr. speaker, the in the pendants office for budget responsibility established by the chancellor gave independent expert advice saying that his plans, and i quote, take total public spending to lowest share of national income in 80 years. why does he believe the obr has joined the bbc in a conspiracy against the conservative party? >> first of all can i welcome what the leader of the opposition says about the atrocities that have taken place. can i also welcome is welcome to the office for budget responsibility? we still remember the days of the federal forecast, the fate figures, and all we had to put up with. but if he is going from a these going to quote the obr him i want to read the complete quote,
and let me do that for the benefit of the house. it says about our spending plan, the closest equivalent in the national accounts implies that by 2019, 2020, day-to-day serving will be at the lowest level since 2002 and three in real terms. now, 2002, three, mr. speaker, was after five years of a labour government with the honorable gentleman was an advisory in the treasury. presumably he is now going to tell us it was a time of deprivation. but i don't seem through with it being the message at the time. >> he spent four years of saying we spend too much, now he is saying we spend too little. the reality is he can't run away from the office for budget responsibility figures. because they say, and this is the full quote, that it takes total public spending to its lowest share of national income in 80 years. is he saying they are wrong as a proportion of national income?
>> roughly the same as was in 1999 after two years of a labour government. the fact is this, i think, i think that after seven years of economic growth we should be having a surplus, we should be fixing the roof when "the sun" is shining. is the labour leader, is the labour leader really saying he doesn't think we should run surface -- surplus ever? is that what he is saying? >> ed miliband. >> it is just a little bit patient, in four months time he will get to ask the questions and i will get to answer them. [shouting] >> now, let's talk -- he knows, he knows what's happened. he knows what's happened is the mask slipped in the ottoman statement accused been revealed for who he really is. let's talk about the scale of
the cut to get to the 1930s session. to our over 50 billion pounds for the entire amount we spend on school compatible is spent on the nhs and significantly more than in this parliament. is he really pretending the cuts on this scale will do massive damage? >> of course we have to make difficult decisions. we have every day since taking over from the shambles that we inherited. and everyone can now see, everyone can now see that his pretense which lasted for about one week uncaring about the deficit is over. this is what the institute for fiscal studies says about his policy, under a labour government that would be much more borrowing and, therefore, more government debt. they haven't learned a single thing from the last four years. more borrowing, more debt, more taxes. all of the things that got us into this mess in the first place. >> he is borrowing 207 billion pounds more than he
planned and he's broken his promise. and the difference is we will cut the deficit ever you. he wants to go back to the 1930s. if that wasn't bad enough, he's got 7 billion pounds of unfunded tax cuts on top. before the last election he said this, you can't talk about tax reduction unless you show how it can be paid for. the public are not stupid. so what is going to be, further cuts in public services or a rise in the '80s because what this government has shown is if you get on top of the national finances, if you grow the economy, you can cut taxes for 26 million people. that's what we do. isn't it interesting, mr. speaker, on this of all day, not a word from him about the fall in unemployment. that is the truth. remember the predictions. they told us they would be no growth, then there was growth. they told us there would be no jobs, then there would jobs.
they told us that jobs wouldn't have pay ahead of inflation, now that jobs had pay i have inflation. they told us the deficit would go up to the deficit has come down. they have had vastly nothing to say about the economy because they have been wrong on every single account. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, jim growing everythineverything is fixed. and maybe fix for his christmas card list but it isn't fixed for far too many people in this country. [shouting] now, he didn't really answer the question on vat, did he? this is what he said before the last election on the fifth of april 2010. we have no plan to put up vat. been barely two months later he put up vat from 17.5, to 20% against 7 billion of unfunded tax cuts, a deficit plan he can't meet and we know he has got for me. will deny categorically rule out a rise in vat? >> we don't need to raise taxes
because we've got a plan for efficiencies in spending to its the party opposite just have a plan. he asked what has changed for real people over the last year. i will tell him. 588,000 people have a job this year who didn't have a job last year. long-term unemployment has fallen, youth unemployment has fallen. you would think the labour party would welcome those. it is christmas. we should all enter into the christmas spirit and i have to say, mr. speaker, i've had my christmas present a little bit early. this is the document being sent to every labour mp, and in case, in case they haven't had the time to read it let me advise them that if they go to page 16, be patient and if they go to page 16 it is there in black and white. managing the economy, it says, the conservatives have a 17-point lead. thank you. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, maybe a
christmas -- mr. speaker, i hope at christmas he gets to reflect on this view. is lost to members of parliament to ukip. he lost 26 in europe and he brought a whole new meaning to the phrase conviction politician when andy coulson went to gao. [shouting] and the truth is he's given up on compassionate conservatism. they been exposed for who they really are. his plan for the 2020s is to go back to the 1930s. it isn't about balancing the books. it is about slashing the state. and four months time that is the election choice. >> what thi does the show is ona day when unemployment has fallen come inflation is down, our economy is growing faster than anywhere else than major economy in the west will. he has nothing to say. i have to say, i almost feel sorry for labour mps. they can't talk about the deficit because it's fallen.
they can't talk about growth because its rising but they can't talk about jobs because we are increasing them. they can talk about immigration because they hav had been told t to talk about immigration. [laughter] they can talk about the live because he's a complete waste of space. [laughter] they wonder for labour mps, this year is a silent night. [shouting] >> thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. >> order. the voice must be heard. >> thank you, mr. speaker. first of all my i concur entirely with the prime minister's words and the appalling tragedy around the world. bearing in mind the continued success of our long-term
economic plan -- [shouting] could my right honorable friend please reassure the house that bearing that in mind that any future cuts of our armed forces will not be under future toward or coalition government? >> well, i actually agree with my honorable friend that you could only have a strong defense budget and strong defense forces if you have a strong economy and the clear long-term economic plan. our defense budget is the biggest in the eu, the second largest in data. we meet the 2% guideline of gdp. what i can tell them is that because of the success of our economic plan we are able to commit to over 160 billion pounds investment in equipment and equip and support over the next 10 years. that's why you're going to see the aircraft carriers, the destroyers, frigates, the submarines, we are seeing
incredible equipment rolling off the production lines in our country to help to keep us safe. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the terrible slaughter of innocents in pakistan yesterday shocked the world. there's another example of atrocity being visited upon children in various parts of the world by these barbaric forces. another example was the attack on 200 school children were abducted in nigeria but at the time the government and other governments pledged their support to do what they can do to assist in what can the prime minister due to provide reassurance of that and the commitment of british experts? >> what we do in all these cases is see what expertise and assets that we have that we can help bring to play to help those governments that are trying to combat these problems. so in nigeria we did for a period lend expertise of our fighter jets in order to provide imaging come to try to help find
the girls and help to work with the nigerian government in of where we can. with pakistan again we believe the pakistan government must confront terrorism in all of its forms, and it is taking steps to do that. and i think today is the day when we should really redouble our support and our efforts and the whole world should do the same to say if the pakistan government wants to continue to act to root out terror, it has the support of the whole world, britain included. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will the prime minister join me in thanking the businesses, the schools, my team, the college in organizing a week long, a weeklong festival of manufacturing and engineering in my constituency? open by the prince of wales, and does he agree with me that by focusing on innovation and productivity, this government will deliver more export and higher standards of living? >> certainly join my honorable friend.
people might know, this is an annual weeklong festival champion by my honorable friend and showcases local manufacturing success stories. when i visited his constituency we watched a 3-d bike being printed in metal. it was extremely impressive but what we need is to continue with a long-term plan which is delivering a more balanced recovery with manufacturing growth as well as construction, as well as services. our commitments for increasing the number of apprentices, to helping companies with rad, keeping tax rates low, all these things are delivering a very strong manufacturing success rate for britain. >> thank you, mr. speaker. millions of people will work extra hours this christmas in difficult and often low-paying jobs so that they can send money to relatives living abroad. their remittances to sub-saharan africa alone account for mode and donor aid. but their money -- will be hit by fees and charges, often as
high as 15%. five years ago, the g8 committed to reducing this transfer tax to 5%. so will the prime minister join me in calling on the transfer companies to cut their charges for christmas as the first step meeting the g8 promised to families in some of the poorest countries in the world of? >> the right honorable lady is absolute right, to highlight the importance of remittances when we look at the amount of money that goes from our country in the form of remittances to countries like somalia and others in sub-saharan africa in desperate need. the action outweighed by significant amount the amount of aid where able to give to those countries. so yes, we should look at every way we can, and we are about how to help these take place. there have been problems in the past with making sure that we apply money-laundering and other
potential issues to those but we are looking hard at what we can do to keep the charges down. >> thank you, mr. speaker. one of the characteristics of the decade leading up to the financial crisis was the trillion pound increase in household debt. would my right honorable friend into the house that no future long-term economic plan will be financed by debt bubble inflated on the backs of hard-working household? >> my honorable friend is absolute right. i mean, one of the changes we have made since the crash is to put in place arrangements for the bank of england to call time on the level of indebtedness in the economy and to make sure that financial regulation including regulation of the mortgage market, for instance, is properly put in place. that is one of the important lessons. i have to say to the party opposite one of the other important lessons is that when you that a long period of economic growth you should be trying to pay down your debt and aiming for a surplus but that is what fixing the roof when "the sun" is shining is all about.
>> i welcome the fall in unemployment but it is still too high in the northeast of england. will detail the house and my unemployed constituents with the principal candidates are for working age benefit cuts? >> first of all let me join him in welcoming the fall in unemployment. it is falling in every region of the country over the last year in the northeast over the last year, an opponent is down by 11,000 that is welcomed. in terms of this issue of addressing the cost of poker i think we should be frank about this as i was discussing calmly earlier with a lead of the opposition, whoever is prime minister of the next election is going to have to make public spending reductions. we have a choice. gave you leave the welfare barrel as it is, or if like labour you vote this afternoon to add 2 billion pounds to the welfare bill that is what they were taught about this afternoon, 2 billion pounds on welfare, you have to take that money out of the education
department or the health department or policing. we think you shouldn't do that. we think yes, there are reductions in welfare that could be made. we will make them. that will keep taxes down and make sure we can have good public services. >> mr. speaker, for people starting their careers or for newly married couples, the prospect of earning their first home is a much desired a very difficult thing. what is committing to help young people in my constituency make that positive move to? >> i think there are two vital steps we can take. the first is to go on backing the health of the fight scheme which has sent thousands of people in the country. i think over 70,000 people. because what it does is enable people are working hard, earn a decent sound, who can afford the mortgage payments to take at that mortgage and buy that home because they don't need such a big deposit the that's the first thing in which continue with it. the second as i announced on monday we want to build starter homes that are 20% below the market price. they should be homes not homes
for rent but homes that young people can buy. they will be reserved for people under the age of 40, and begin to social people who work hard, want to get on and do the right thing for themselves and the family. under a conservative government they will have homes they can buy. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i was -- [inaudible] >> what is indicative of the nhs under this government is the fact there are 1007 and more paramedics and two and more ambulances and when does government came to power. the reason for that is we didn't listen to the party opposite who said it was irresponsible to increase health spending. instead we put 12 points have been doing tons into the nhs.
where any ambulance trust falls down, that is a matter of cities regret and should be looked into very carefully and i will look into this case as i do with any other. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does my right honorable friend a grid with me that it is not unhelpful to discuss -- [inaudible] border controls and immigration? anyone who thinks that is out of touch and perhaps they should be moved off? [laughter] >> well, i think my honorable friend is right. our job as elected politicians is to respond to people's concerns and address them. and this is why i fear for the christmas of labour mps but what are they going to talk about? immigration, that's out of the question. the figures today, can't talk what an opponent because it's plummeted. they got nothing to say about the deficit. they spent precise when we telling us that deficit matter before pitching up today and now spending two going pounds on welfare.
i think leadership issues they want to skip over but i think of the very difficult time for th them. >> thank you very much indeed, mr. speaker. [shouting] >> i don't know if the country would've received any christmas cards featuring husky dogs. perhaps he could tell us what he agrees with his want of open the man -- who has said that the uk's groundbreaking climate change act should be scrapped? >> i haven't checked all my christmas cards but i don't think i've had one that she suggested that i spent an hour and three quarters in front of the liaison committee discussing the issues of climate change were think the legislation we have in place is delivering cuts in carbon emissions and want to see under this governmen governe world's first green investment bank. we have doubled the amount of investment going into renewable energy compared with the previous two parliaments but that's what's happening under our government. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can the prime minister confirm
that due to the long campaign led by my honorable friend come and, of course, the long-term economic plan, my constituents this winter can have an extended -- and to new york to look for to long last to rebuilding of the hospital? >> i know how hard my honorable friend has worked for this outcome and unhappy to say that infield group has announced an extension to the opening hours of the chase for urgent care center. this will be in place until the local urgent care review reports. and further i can confirm the government has set aside 230 million pounds for the redevelopment of the chase farm site. so that is very good news to the people of his constituency and his borough in london. what we are doing because we have a long-term economic plan is investing in local health services.
>> today, there are two and have thousand of your nurses compared to may 2010. why? >> well, obviously he hasn't been studying either the documents he gets sent by his own party or the figures. today actually to our new figures out on the nhs, and i'm delighted, let me give them the new figures. we were saying there were 2000 extra nurses under this government, mr. speaker. that was wrong. there are 3000 more nurses under this government. [shouting] we were saying until very recently there were 7000 more doctors under this government. i'm ashamed to say that's wrong. the dig is 8000 more doctors under this government. the nhs it performed well because would put the money in and made the reform. >> he's laughing. >> she's smiling. >> can i commend, can i commend my right honorable friend is some advice from karl mark's?
who wi when the european correspondent of new tribune observed that these vital interests should render great britain the earnest and unyielding opponent of the russian projects of annexation? and went on in the rest of the russian scheme of annexation, the interest of democracy and of england go hand in hand quick step by rideable friend agreed united kingdom, europe, the west and the whole world one of our most important foreign policy priorities for 2015 should be to see that russia behaves as one would expect as number of security council behaves, and interest -- [shouting] >> i very much agree with my right honorable friend. i haven't spent as much time
studying karl marx ses or perhaps even as the leader of the opposition has. i don't know what goes on in camden these days. but anyway what it would sit in this respect karl marx was right that the interest of the united kingdom and democracy do go together. we should stand up firmly against the russian aggression that is taking place. we lead the way in europe in making sure there were sanctions, and with the combination of the lower oil price and the sanctions are showing that i think it is impossible for russia to be part of the international financial system to try to opt out of the rules based on international legal system but that i think is what is being demonstrated and we should keep up the pressure. [inaudible] >> the framework has been fixed
and it said the overall amount of business and they can go into renewable energy schemes, many of which are providing jobs for constituencies up and down the country, often particularly on the east coast of our country, not least where an enormous amount of investment is going in. i welcome that investment and i'm not sure what his view is. >> will the prime minister confirm that if he and the chancellors deliver, they will take public spending back to the level that was being delivered by the then labour chancellor? but only because he was bound by an election pledge, to stick to my economic -- [shouting] >> that he had inherited from a conservative government. [shouting] >> my right honorable friend gives us a very important historical perspective, and he does come back to this point. the party opposite seemed to be no basing their entire economic policy on some throwaway mark on the bbc at about 10 past 10 on a
monday morning. the truth is what is being envisioned is getting public spending back to the level it was in 2002 when he was sitting in the treasury. i am afraid his whole idea like all his economic policies has collapsed within five minutes. >> the most recent oecd report on income inequality shows the uk economy is 20% bigger and the tax policy -- [inaudible] can the prime minister resist the temptation to consider essentially his policies -- [inaudible] and harming the middle and low income people went the rising cost of living -- [shouting] >> order. prime minister.
>> i was just getting the hang of it actually. [laughter] i think the problem, the problem with the labour party's attempt narratives is simply isn't true. that talk about inequality but inequality is lower than it was in the election. to talk about poverty but there are 600,000 fewer people in relative poverty kind of were at the election. to talk about child poverty but there are 300,000 fewer children in relative poverty and at election. this afternoon we'll be talking about children. there are 390,000 fewer children in households where no one works than the were in 2010 but those are the facts. they may be inconvenient but you ought to have a look at them it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituents charity workers were, last week, facing a tax bill of more than 8000 pounds as they moved into their first home. as reported in the excellent
source free journal, if they declared he was blown away by the chancellors statement in would be giving somebody for and have thousand pound duty that he unexpectedly faced to local charities. what exactly is last week's -- [inaudible] >> well, i'm very grateful to my honorable friend. the message the autumn statement sends is that we're on the side of people who work hard, want to get on, i want to own their own flat or the oh, no. we've got the stamp duty for those families so they can afford those houses. what a contrast with the party opposite the want a new home tax. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituents who is paying 12 pounds a week for the 72 pounds week income on the victim tax was less than impressed to find out that
actually benefits is about 4 billion pounds higher than it was in 2010. win, win is this a prime minister going to tackle the real problems of increasing housing benefits spending which are low wages? >> the point is the labour party have opposed every single change to welfare, every single change to housing benefit. and this afternoon they are going to vote in this house for an extra 2 billion pounds of welfare spending. all this in the week when they are meant to be telling us how much they care about the deficit but it is completely incoherent, and that is where the british public will never trust the labour party with the economy again. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. the recent announcement to extend -- was widely welcome.
however, there is some skepticism about it actually happening in the previous labour government shall do this team in 2009. can my right honorable friend, therefore, provide me and my constituents the reassurance that a future conservative government can be relied on to deliver this scheme? >> i can certainly get my honorable friend that assurance and i know he has campaigned tirelessly to improve the roads in his constituency, and that these routes are absolutely vital so the reason we can give them that assurance is because we have a long-term economic plan that is delivering the economic growth that we need, that using our deficit come down comment because we've made that success we can commit to these road schemes. >> order. closed question. liz mckinney. >> fifteen. >> this government is using a range of measures including cold weather payments, warm home discounts and an increase in pensions. we will improve by 2015 because provide real help to all the people by taking money off their
bill and insulating their homes to ensure they're able to keep warm this winter. >> thank you, mr. speaker. that's an interesting response but my constituents, my constituents william sullivan has written to me to say how appalled he is the last year over 18,000 people in england and wales died because of the cold. what guarantee can be prime minister give me that no more of my constituents will suffer in the cold this winter who want a properly insulated homes because what i would say is that every excess winter deaths -- death is a tragedy, and the 18,200 last year were too high. but i have to say to her, that is half the level of the excess winter deaths they were in 2089 when the leader of her party was the energy secretary. so we will continue with a long-term patient work of the warm home to discount keeping the winter fuel payments, the
cold weather payments and the schemes to insulate people's homes. that is the right way forward. >> sir malcolm bruce. >> can the prime minister can from the nhs spending under this coalition government has risen by 4% in real terms? this has been passed on to scotland where spending has been cut by 1%. can be also be aware the 70 million -- shortfall in funding and consequent responsible for the crisis in health service in northeastern scotland lies firmly with the scottish government? >> my honorable friend is also be right. we've increased spending by 12.7 billion pounds. that translates into a real terms increase, so scotland and wales have had the extra money to spend, labour in wales chose to cut the nhs rather than to invest in it. and in scotland, the government has not translated to the full amount of money. that is why when you look at figures for things like accident and emergency, yes, we need to do better in england but our
performance is still well better than it is in wales or in scotland, or indeed in northern ireland. the moral of the story is unique long-term economic plan and the conservative led government to deliver these advances. >> order. point of order. we have a statement. >> here on c-span2 we will now leave the british house of commons as members move onto other business. you have been watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesdays when parliament is in session. of reminded you can see this week's session again sunday night at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. and for more information go to c-span.org and click on series to be every program was aired from the british house of commons since october 1989. we invite your comments about prime minister's questions via twitter using the hashtag pmqs.
>> russia and its currency is expected to be a factor, along with falling oil prices. when u.s. monetary policy officials meet. federal reserve chairman janet yellen holds a news conference after the federal open market committee meeting. that's live on c-span2 at 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> c-span2 providing live coverage at his senate floor proceedings and key public policy defense. end of the weekend, booktv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors to c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> a look at south korea's relationship with china, japan, north korea and the united states. experts talk about opportunities for advancing peace and security
on the korean peninsula as well as economic prosperity. this discussion was part of a daylong conference cohosted by the brookings institution, peking university and the korea foundation for advanced studies but it runs 90 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. i am honored to preside over the second meeting, get-together in the name of trilateral conference on northeast asia and the united states. specifically, the topic of korea and major powers.
basically, my roll is what's done to keep the time, you know, on time. but tonight our discussion move, i would like to make two points. first point is this year we celebrated 20 years anniversary of the agreement which was signed 20 years ago, in 1994 between united states and north korea. during the last 20 years it has been crystal clear that north korea totally lost abilities. and still is striking to get -- nuclear power.
the six-party talk has been stalemated as everybody aware of it. unfortunately, time is not on our side. north korea's nuclear capability has demonstrated a drastic upgrade and sophistication during the last 20 years. now, it's high time the member states of the six parties talks to come up with new ideas. to make new breakthrough. at same time next year as this morning's mentioned, we will also celebrate 30 years anniversary of diplomatic relations -- no more diplomatic relations between korea and japan. and also 70 year anniversary of independence from japanese korean rule.
korea and japan will be a crossroads. so with this kind of new development in mind, i'd like to invite three prominent presenters, and also three discussants to talk on these issues. my first presenters will be professor jung-hoon lee, as you already know him very well. he is international school of law -- qingguo jia, dean of school of international studies at peking university.
he actually studied coming actually, you know, joins us as a researcher twice in institution from 85-86, and 2001-2002. and one of the interesting characteristics, some features is he has special status as a member of the standing committee and the foreign affairs committee of the national committee of the chinese people political consultative conference. and also, you know, jia has some political membership of some party that is not chinese or congress party. his party is democratically become a kind of u.s., you know,
democrats. [laughter] now is your time. >> thank you much, ambassador park, for your kind introduction. i guess my talk, i will focus the evaluation of what's going on trilateral relationship between china, u.s. and south korea. how should we evaluate the trilateral relationship with these three countries during the past year? the answer is that it is next -- mixed with positive and negative developments. in terms of positive
development, one finds that the u.s. and south korea relationship is quite stable, despite some small scratches and misgivings, as the dan russel just pointed out. it's never been better. china south korea relationship, can also compete in that sense, has never been better. our two leaders, resident xi jinping and president park, they have very good personal relationship. and the reason is the recent signing of the fda is also very significant in terms of our relationship. in terms of the chinese relationships i think after
suffering the repeated setbacks, the relationship appeared to be back on track again, back on the right track again with xi-obama summit in beijing. the two leaders had extended talks and the two governments agreed specific targets on climate change, and also they agreed on acceleration of negotiation between the two countries, and also they agreed on reduction of technologies and also they were to m.o.u.s between the two militaries on disputing measures concerning
military maneuvers on high seas. on the other side one finds that the u.s. pressures on south korea on issues like deployment of the systems of south korea and also participation, south korea's participation on a i a b. are really making south korea quite frustrated, either way. they don't want to offend china, allegedly the chinese are opposed to this, and also try to invite south korea to join. china's opposition to a deployment, and also chinese
efforts to enlist the south korea to join are making south korea's life a little more uncomfortable. at the same time. and also despite the success of the xi-obama summit in beijing, i think differences on a whole range of issues, ranging from positive view with north korea more effectively on the nuclear issue, to how to address the south china sea maritime disputes. we have a lot of differences. and both governments are concerned about, quite concerned about the other countries approach. the three countries cannot agree on how to deal with north korea nuclear issues, which is
allegedly bearing no time, i mean north korea, widely developing nuclear weapons and planning to have another impact. how can we explain the negative developments if we can't explain the positive developments? so how can we develop -- explain the negative developments? first, there is the deepening strategic suspicions between china and u.s. on the one hand, and also between these three countries and north korea are so there is a lot of suspicion as to what the other's intentions are. the second factor is the rise of china. the rise of china means that china is now kind of in the middle of the rise. in the middle of the rise being that china has no identity on
many fronts. for several china is both a developing country and a developed country. a weak country, a strong country, a poor country and a rich country. an ordinary power and a superpower in a way. and the identities identify interest, chinese have two sets of interest on many issues, okay? as a result, chinese are confused come in terms of how to define their interests, let alone to carry out a coherent foreign policy. so when china sends out conflicting encoding signals, the u.s. gets confused. the u.s. wants to know what the chinese really want, what the chinese are really up to. the problem is the chinese know, the americans cannot find out. so the americans about the hedging policy and, of course,
china, when chinese look at the u.s. a top to a hedging policy, but a top their own version of the hedging policy. so as a result, the interaction between china and u.s. can easily get into a negative cycle. and that, of course, on top of this where domestic politics problem come in china you have rising nationalism, you know, people suddenly realize that china is no longer that week. you know, they thought that china behaved in restraint because china was weak in the past. not a think that china is no longer that week, so they pushed the chinese government to defend china's allegedly legitimate interest in a more forceful way. and, of course, on the part of the u.s., you know, you have
politicians to try to capitalize fear and frustration with china over ideological concerns or self interests. this is a time, you know, to make china case first to be successful in elections. what do we do about this? i think first of all we need to exercise caution. you know, china is in transiti transition, a lot of flux. so we do not want to make hasty conclusion, i mean draw hasty conclusions and adopt hostile policy towards each other, that one may regret in the days to come. especially between china and the u.s. this problem is really a cute. and also the two countries should give others the time and chance to put nice record into package.
china needs more time to figure out what it's interests are, and i believe that the chinese are wise enough to make the right choices over time. and also we need to be innovative. china and u.s. to think about welcoming each other, participate in their own respective projects. anyway, somehow we need to make accommodations to each other to be flexible and innovative. the u.s. and south korea, i mean, they need to spend more time to explain the systems better to the chinese, that it cannot we can china's limited nuclear deterrent capabilities. think about deployment of
another system that has left, but chinese less threatening. china and the south korea, china should probably give more consideration of those concerned over a.i.d. decision-making structure. south koreans want to have more say in the aig. let them chip in more money, okay? china and, of course, cooperation of north korea i think the three countries should think of working more closely together to form the sort of united front to offer treasures and incentives to encourage north korea to give up nuclear weapons. and, finally, we need those of pragmatism. whatever action each country takes, they should address the concerns of the other two countries if it wants to be successful. u.s. and north korea should try to alleviate china's concern
over regime change of north korea. china and the u.s. probably should alleviate those concerns over its relationship with the of the country, you know, whether it's china or the u.s., don't push too hard. and china and south korea probably should try to alleviate washington's concern over the nuclear threats in north korea, and also attempt to minimize the role of the u.s., allegedly, the efforts to minimize the role of the u.s. in the region. so if we try to be innovative and pragmatic and cautious at the same time, i think the relationship should be less bad, if not much better. thank you. >> thank you for your presentation on time. if i could give my personal comment on your argument on a
a.i.d. come you argued there might be some pressure from the u.s. side. i don't know if the u.s. side pressures on our shoulders, but if i am correct, the biggest problem is that china wants to take 50% shareholders based on -- a little higher than normal gdp per capita. if china takes 50% of shareholders, kobe has some difficulties. so that is my initial understanding, but this issue could be discussed, there in -- in the third session where we deal with these issues. if i could get my initial
response to your arguments on chinese, you know, government attitude towards korean nuclear issues. as we discussed in 2009, china became more associated, if i borrow theoretical technologies. since then there's some clearer changing of the chinese attitude towards policy. over at that time there was some balance into objects. one is -- [inaudible] when it comes to common object in countries, you know, since i was told that china, you know,
prioritized -- over nuclearization. so maybe i wonder if there's any changes of chinese policy in this space. maybe you could respond? my next speaker will be professor jung-hoon lee. is teaching at yonsei university and also korean governments ambassador to human rights. recently he founded the human liberty center dealing with human life issues with special reference to north korea in human life issues. he is very famous public commentator. now, it will --
>> thank you, president park. let me first say that i greatly appreciate the korea foundation for its advanced studies at the brookings institution as well as peking university for this great opportunity to exchange very frank dialogue. it's been a revelation and very helpful process. the panels title is korea's relations with major powers. as far as i know, there are four major powers, but i was made aware of the fact that we have 10 minutes to discuss korea's relations with the major powers. that gives me after this introduction about less than two minutes per major power, which is a mission impossible. so i've taken the liberty to eliminate two of the four major power status as, russia and
japan, for no better reason than, well, i don't particularly like mr. putin because i think he's a bully. and i'm not particularly fond of -- sorry to our japanese friends, mr. abe because i think he lacks compassion. i will be focusing on korean relations with the united states and china. first let me turn very quickly to korea's relations with the united states. well, let me just a ball, first say that both korea china relations and korea-u.s. relation, if we are able to isolate the two and look at them independently, it's as good as it can get. i mean, we have heard it, but from the chinese delegation here. we've heard it from the american delegation your.
of course the security consultative meetings, the scn. in fact 46 scn at the shangri-la, the defense minister s in may this year the united states and south korea agreed to postpone the transfer of the war-time operational control. no date set at this time. the transfer would take place when the conditions is appropriate depending on the views of the both countries. i guess in particular in terms of the threat from north korea. so this is a very positive development in korean-american relations. that is not to say that
everything is rosy in rianne-american relations. there are some outstanding issues that needs to be ironed out between the two. one of course is the north carolina clear agreement which i guess will move into 2015. it is a very complicated issue. it is not an easy issue. there is the on going complication of u.s. bases in korea but overall i think bilateral relations is in great, excellent shape. likewise south korean relations with china is in great shape. everyone is talking about the personal relationship between president xi jinping and president pack was the chair womb of grand national party.
at that time the grand national party was the opposition party, not the ruling party. president she jinping was the president of both of them were are were not the height of the statute which probably reinforced their chemistry because they're undergoing some issues at the time. that friendship has lasted, but for gnat for the korea china relations both of them ended up becoming leaders of respective countries. pack made the state visit last year in 2013. we had the return visit by president she jinping in july. that was which was significant bus south korean leader visiting
china before a north korean leader. i might add that president pack is meeting with president xi jinping. to date the bilateral summit meeting has not taken place between prime minister abe and president pak. which makes this. we had six meetings between two leaders. but south korean relationship goes further than the personal link. the bilateral trade was well over last year was $230 billion. they're pushing for $300 billion at some point. now we have over eight million travelers between the two countries. in 1992 when the two countries
normalized relations with each other there was only 130 and mostly of course recently the fta was concluded. the two countries also seem to have a common front in targeting japan, mr. abe's historical revision. i don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing but in terms of korea-china relations it has contributed. now so on an independent basis great relationship but when you start to look into this respectively r bilateral relations in larger context of u.s.-china relations things are more complicated. things become, things don't look so rosy. and this is because despite the denial from both the united states and china zero sum logic does not apply in their relations with south korea i think they do.
what do i mean by that? i think juxtapositioning of the old traditional order in east asia and the emergence of a new order that may be shaking up the old order. the old order is the traditional international order in this region where the united states plays a very central role. the asia pivot is supposed to reinforce this old order which has existed since the end of world war ii. and the success of this pivot is contingent on a very close alliance relations especially with south korea. but other variables, they're just in a constant state. i think the economic term is, that one of the variables is making some, you know, tetonic
noise and that is why china rising and in particularize with china as an emergence, as a maritime power in this region. now you might say that challenging the u.s. preeminence in the asia-pacific region but even if you deny that there is no question that china is trying to carve out a greater role and influence in this region. you might call that grand strategy of china in the form of maybe new silk road. and this is a very significant development because if you look at it, if you look at the new silk road vision it does represent a massive loop linking three continents with china playing a central role within this loop as provider of goods,
information, as well as infrastructure, roads, railroads, airports, so on and so forth. what is the endgame for china? the expansion of the economic interaction eventually spilling over into the cultural and political center to create a cultural, economic political block where china plays a leading role. and china wants i believe, korea to be part of this bloc. here inlies the dilemma for south korea. we are very much entrenched in the old order but there is this new order emerging which the, where china wants korea to play a significant role. now this is, this is a problem because the new silk road, i may be wrong in this assessment, is not seen as being complimenting but rather competing with
u.s.-controlled sea lanes, not to mention tpp. and china's push on this as already mentioned, push for south korea joining the aiib and also the open opposition to it. ad, as far as south korea is concerned, tad has nothing to do with china t has everything to do with north korea. that is not the view of china. china looks at it not in the local sense but from the perspective of u.s.-china relations. this is the background, okay, this is the background where, you know, there is this discourse over the dilemma of south korea. but to come to an abrupt conclusion, really as far as i'm concerned there is no dilemma because the at end of the day the fact is the united states is south korea's ally. china is not an ally.
it is a very, very partner of south korea's but not an ally. and therefore in order for that dimension and matrix to change there has to be some significant changes in china, particularly as a soft power and i will leave it at that. thank you. >> thank you. you covered these issues in very microscopic issues a way but i like to give some some microscopic questions based on your background as ambassador in human rights issues. two weeks ago you and general assembly took very groundbreaking resolution recommending prosecution of its leaders at international criminal court, icc. even though china and russia expected to use veto power in
front of the security council. these issues will be a new headache to china. now do you think this kind of new approaches will increase the chinese, you know, regime over north korean nuclear issues? do you think, my colleague make some answers. next speakers will be miss catherine moon. she is actually professor of political science and at asian studies at wesley college and she is holders of the korean foundation stair in korean studies in brookings institution. so. >> thank you very much. i would probably, if i introduce
myself, flip the order around. i am first and foremost the sk korea foundation chair in korean studies and part of center for east asia studies policy program and i am very fortunate to have incredibly wonderful, intellectually and personally wonderful set of colleagues on the fourth floor of this building and our fearless leader, richard bush, is here and he set as tone for a certain kind of integrity and quality of work and dedication. so i'm very glad to be part of that group. there are many thanks to be given but everybody else has given the traditional thanks to all the traditional people. i'd like to give an untraditional thanks to my research associate paul park here at brookings. many of us work with staff members who are outstanding, outstanding as the senior
scholars are and they're often the unsung heroes. so he was very much a part of preparing for my presentation and also discussing together some of these ideas. i'm going to take a different approach from the conventional approach when we talk about the koreas or especially south korea in the context of the major powers. we have, i don't know if i can stomach another conference on asia pivot, another panel on how korea feels sandwiched between china and the u.s. or another intense seminar on the history issue between japan, korea and china. so i would like to try something new. it is part of a book project that i am beginning and i tend to be a mid to long-term thinker and i think we in this audience it is the right crowd to be doing that kind of foreshadowing
or more in depth thinking about the larger future of northeast asia and so i would like to talk about demographic, domestic politics but demographic change that leads to domestic politics and therefore lead to foreign policy, possibly changes in foreign policy priorities including korea's relationship with the united states, with china and the also the non-major powers in east asia which we have tended to leave out in our discussions but we know they're very, very important for a variety of reasons. my basic question is this, how might the domestic, the demographic changes that are rapidly occurring in south korea in particular, going to affect korea's role and relations in east asia in the future? south korean society is in the throes, in the midst, in the struggle of demographic change,
socially, politically, culturally, that have serious implications for economic performance as well as national security priorities and foreign policy priorities. there are two major factors. one is the very low birth rate and the fast-aging society that most of you know that characterizes south korea. it is the lowest in terms of the birth rate, the lowest birth rate among all oecd countries and the 52-week lowest in the world. south korea's fertility rate is lower than japan's and south korea, as we all know, tends to catch up very fast. i'm not so sure this is a good area which south korea should have caught up so fast but nevertheless statistics are statistics and they tell us certain facts. the second area is the demographic change happening
from migration, both from defectors from the north, coming into the south, who amount to approximately 30,000 at this point. the number seems low compared to a near 50 million south korean population. however, they hold much more potential clout in determining the foreign policy trajectory, especially in inter-korea relations and with china we might give them credit for at this point. i'm not going to focus on that. i have papers i'm working on and i'm happy to talk about on "q&a" but i will focus on a change from focus from our facial features, homogenous society in south korea to one that is inclusive of multi-ethnic and,
quote, multicultural, what south korean, what the government officially labeled as, literally translated as multicultural family, or in chinese for many of our chinese speakers -- [speaking chinese] its lets ral translation. when i first read the korean language, i thought what on earth does this mean? i realize it is literal translation from multicultural family, multicultural society, which never existed, that notion or concept never existed in south korea until very recently. but the striking thing about this phenomenon not that it is taking place. migration takes place all over the world but how rapidly the south korean government picked up this issue as a major policy priority, both for increasing the population, increasing the labor pool potentially and also
to accommodate, make accomodations for the newcomers so that they might try to integrate better into south korean society. it is an assimilationist policy which many south korean n gos and advocates of these groups and immigrants themselves criticize because they are not in favor of a simulation per se. nevertheless it is serious attempt and i would saw alloweddable attempt to pay attempt on part of the government to pressing welfare, educational, job, technical skills and other needs of integration required because of this growing presence of foreign nationals and their children who are what some people might pejoratively say korasian. many of the foreigners are from asia. they marry korean nationals and
they become multi-ethnic, multicultural, multiracial backgrounds. they are 200,000 in number. they are korean citizens by birth. why? in 1997, south korea did something that some south korean newspaper commentators was epic call change, epical change, phenomenal revolution. lineage from father and mother, a korean citizen who is female and mother can bestow citizenship on her non-fully korean child. this is brand new, okay? david dollar likes that, progressive. nevertheless so south korea has been changing legally, norm tiffly, and in terms of phne type and culturally and policywise. to give you a couple more at
that tick ticks. -- statistics, south korea, in terms of population projected into the future by 2030, about a quarter of south korea's population currently around 50 million will be 65 or older. by 2045, this is really not long, really not long in the future. by 2045, i will be 95 years old, if i'm around, you young people will have to take care of these problems but nevertheless, by 2045 the average age in south korea will be 50 years old. that is what i am now. i feel very young but that is a aging population, technically speaking. and this is important when it comes to economic productivity and the labor force that is able to sustain a fast-growing aging population. by 2060, the south korean
population will plummet to between 34 million and 44 million from the current 350 million or so and there as some koreans know, these wild projections that in about 100 years, south koreans will have disappeared from the face of the earth, or rather rians. if -- rather koreans. if nothing else changing. i don't believe in that. of course i'm not adding the potential unification scenario but i don't believe that unication will solve the demographic problems. that can be saved for q&a. >> ten minutes. >> sorry? >> ten minutes. >> my ten minutes are up. >> four more minutes. >> give me two more minutes please. i'm only female on this. you know, i'm talking about minorities in korea. i can claim all sorts of crazy things but ushant. i respect my colleagues too
much. the total size of south korea's labor force is expected to peek in 2016-17 and decline thereafter. economic growth would be reduced by about half of what it is now by 2050. that is a significant concern to be had. for korea to maintain its economic, military, political, cultural power an increase in the birth rate is needed, needed at an increase of at least 1.8 from the current 1.25 over the next decade. and i predict it will not happen, not by south koreans alone. national security implications. over the past five years a number of men age 18 to 35 and eligible for mandatory military service has dropped by over 120,000. there will be a shortage of 84,000 by 2030 and a shortage of
123,000 by 2050 due to low birth rate. and these are figures from the korean, relevant korean ministries. this would result in a shortage of 30% manned power, woman power in 2030 and a 45% shortage by 2050. what is very interesting is that military officials are aware of declining number of potential recruits in south korea and put into place reduction of army troops from 552,000 to 387,000 by 2020. that is again, very soon in the future. if the rok is to maintain the current level of military fighting personnel at 650,000, the government need to recruit 276,000 people per year. again this is not tenable. it is not sustainable. under current conditions.
i have other statistics on that which are very important but i will leave it aside. what is also very interesting that the suit crowian government has been responding quickly to these changing demographics such that in february 2012, the draft law, the military service law was changed to recognize and formalize the demographic, diversification of koreans. until that law, only koreans of full korean ethnic are parentage could join the military. this is a highly ethno nationalistic society. i have give no judgment to that. policies are gaysed on that assumption of the ethno nationalism. all citizens of male background are expected to perform mandatory military service, expected of all able-bodied korean men. i have other things i can raise during q&a i will leave these
questions for you to think about because these are the important implications for foreign policy. if these growing children of who are south korean citizens, heavily marginalized and discriminated against in south korean society, do not get integrated into the society and are not able to develop a national identity in accord with the larger society we need to ask questions about what south korea's national interests will become in the future. how tight will the alliance with the u.s. be? how feasible will it be to improve or potentially to see set backs in relations with china. the overwhelming majority of foreigners in south korea who are laying down roots as koreans, residents and citizens, come from china and han and
korean ethnicity but they too are marginalized in south korea. on the other hand we have defectors from the north who are at the vanguard of activism criticizing chinese foreign policy regarding refugees, economic migrants, what have you from the north. so we have diplomatic tensions between the south and china because of the defectors activism, south korean left activism and the south korean right's activism on refugees and human rights. we have multiple ways that we are watching, i am watching south korea diversifying its foreign policy. president park in her first year invited as first head of state to come to south korea, the current president of the philippines, the young mr. benino and she made it a priority to visit all the major
southeast asian states in her first year of presidency and she was a new foreign policy called v, i, p, vietnam, indonesia, the philippines. south korea is diversifying its foreign policy around not couldn't dense the demographic changes occurring from south korea happen to draw heavily from population in vietnam, indonesia, philippines, thailand, et cetera. i leave open the question of how might the domestic, demographic changes in in south korea affect domestic identification, identification in terms of political identification with south korea's current interests versus future changing interests. how might these youngsters of mixed background grow up to help lead south korean society in ways that are aimed toward peaceful, cooperative relations in the greater east asian land
mass and sea mass. thank you. >> thank you for your very creative new approaches on korean issues. i hope we could have another very lengthy in extra time here in seoul. now, time for to us invite three discussions. my first discussion will be mr. robert ireland, who is fellow at this institution and he served aspects advisors for non-proliferation and arms control of the u.s. department. he served there as secretary of state for non-proliferation long, long time ago. he is usually well-known walking dictionary on north korean
nuclear issues. since the first nuclear crisis. if you don't mind i will give very quick two questions. this year iran made some new options. bilateral negotiation, which was very helpful. so i wonder if this kind of new formula could be applicable to north korean case. there are some, today, some comparison with today's arguments on those issues. and the failures the threats to -- other sides. i want to know longevity of strategic tolerance. thank you. >> i will answer the iran question first. in my comments go into strategic
patience and whether we're impatient with strategic patience. on iran, we don't know if there will be agreement with iran in the p5-plus-one countries. if there is it is likely to permit a very limited uranium enrichment program. people have asked what is the precedent for dealing with the dprk nuclear program in any agreement with the north koreans? i believe it would not be possible to permit any enrichment or reprocessing program. the dprk has a long-standing track record of violating its commitments. one of the early commitments it violated was the north-south denuclearization agreement in 1992 when the north explicitly agreed not to have any