VIEWPOINTS & INTERVIEWS
Global
Overview: Interview with Ambassador Donald P. Gregg
By
By Keith W. Rabin, KWR International, Inc.
Following
his graduation from Williams College in 1951, Donald
P. Gregg joined the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),
and over the next quarter century was assigned to Japan,
Burma, Vietnam and Korea. Gregg was seconded to the National
Security Council staff in 1979, where he was in charge
of intelligence activities and Asian policy affairs.
In 1982, he was asked by the then Vice President George
H. W. Bush to become his national security advisor. He
then retired from the CIA, and was awarded its highest
decoration, the Distinguished Intelligence Medal. During
his six years with Vice President Bush, Gregg traveled
to 65 countries. Between 1980–89, Gregg also served
as a professorial lecturer at Georgetown University,
where he taught a graduate level workshop entitled “Force
and Diplomacy.” From September 1989, Gregg served
as ambassador to Korea for three and one-half years.
Prior to his departure from Korea in 1993, Gregg received
the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public
Service, an honorary degree from Sogang University, and
a decoration from the Prime Minister of Korea. In March
1993, Gregg retired from a 43-year career in the United
States government, and assumed his current position as
the president and chairman of The Korea Society in New
York City. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Recent awards include an honorary degree from Green Mountain
College (1996), the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding
Public Service (2001) and Williams College’s Kellogg
Award for career achievement (2001).
NEW YORK (KWR) –
Thank you Ambassador Gregg for agreeing to speak with us today. Before
proceeding with our questions, can you tell us a little about your background
and current activities?
I first went to Asia in March of 1952, spent ten years in Japan, shorter
periods in Burma and Vietnam and six or seven years in Korea, first as CIA
station chief and later as Ambassador. Since early 1993 I have been Chairman
of the Korea Society. In this capacity I travel to Korea three or four times
a year and last year traveled twice to North Korea.
Despite its clear potential and achievements,
Korea has lagged behind many other Asian countries
over the past year, at least in terms of its equity
indices. Many investors mention problems with the
North, heightened labor tensions, high consumer debt
and the emerging competitiveness of China as reasons
for their ambivalence. Are investor’s right
to be concerned and what should they be keeping in
mind about Korea and the future course of its economy?
The Korea Society recently featured Hogan Oh as a speaker about a month ago.
He is a highly successful Korean banker who managed debt restructurings under
Lee Hung Jae during the Kim Dae Jung regime. This included the makeover of
Daewoo. His feeling is the Koreans are still learning the power of the marketplace,
and they are still moving away from the period where government made decisions
which he believes are better left determined by the private sector. He was
asked what he would do if he were king now and noted he would work through
the banks to make sure they would play their role in making things transparent
and that borrowing is conducted in satisfactory fashion. He is quite bullish
on the future of Korea but admits that questions on North Korea act as a
deterrent to investors and hopes very much that the American role in dealing
with North Korea will become clearer than it is at the present time.
One Korean official recently noted to me
their belief that some of the current anxiety over
Korea is reflective of its having become a more advanced
participatory democracy. As a result, a wider range
of stakeholders are now voicing and learning how
to advocate their opinions. Their thought was while
this was creating some concern in the short-term
it was a long-term positive. Do you share this view
and what are your own thoughts on the current administration
in Korea and its policy agenda?
I think that South Korea is probably the most vibrant democracy in Asia and
President Roh has said to some of his confidants that governing South Korea
is much more difficult than he thought. I think this is a very healthy remark
and is similar to what American presidents used to say about the difficulties
they found in governing this country. I think that President Roh is caught
in almost a zero sum game between the over 60s-set and the younger people
who played such a major role in electing him. Memories of the Korean War
have faded in the younger peoples minds if they ever knew about it in the
first place. They tend to see the U.S. as an obstruction to North-South reconciliation.
The older generation, however, remembers the horrors of the war and remains
grateful to the United States. They are also very skeptical of the Sunshine
Policy. I think it is a very difficult task for Roh Moo Hyun to thread his
way between these very different sets of perceptions. I think he leads a
forward-looking administration and remain confident in the end he will emerge
as a constructive president, who will advance South Korea on its role to
become the hub of Northeast Asia.
Recently, Japan has been receiving a lot
of positive attention for the first time in many
years. Some people believe this is simply a cyclical
upturn and others that this marks the start of an
economic recovery. What are your thoughts about Japan
at the present time?
The Japanese economy is something almost beyond comprehension in how it has
floundered over the past dozen years. I draw some hope from Prime Minister
Koizumi’s reelection and some of his cabinet appointees, including
Mr. Takenaka as evidence they are going to push forward with genuine reformation.
It still has a long way to go but I think that Koizumi is one of the better
leaders Japan has produced since the Ron-Yasu (Nakasone) relationship during
the time of President Reagan.
A Financial Times reporter recently described
Europe as the past, the U.S. the present and China
the future leading force in the world economy. How
do you view the emergence of China and what will
be the implications for Americans and other nations
over the next few decades?
I only have a superficial response to that. I was in Qingdao in September
for a six party meeting and was astonished by the development of the city
and the construction along the beach. It looked almost like Southern California
with every kind of car in the world in the streets. The Chinese diplomats
dominated the meeting. Their sophistication was notable and they are on the
rise. But - inner China is still very much lagging behind. There are still
huge problems with corruption, unemployment and highly inefficient public
sector industries that have yet to be dealt with.
Last year I heard you speak at the annual
Foreign Policy Association conference and was intrigued
by your comments on Iraq and the global war on terrorism.
Now that we have gone to war, what are your current
views on Iraq and the global war on terrorism? Are
we striking the right balance between military-,
diplomatic- and socially-oriented means to deal with
these problems?
I was very much impressed by Retired Marine General Anthony Zinney’s
recent comments on the war. He felt the actual battle plan had been brilliantly
conceived and carried out but there had been far too little anticipation
to what would follow at the end of the full-scale military engagement. I
think this is a very difficult situation for the United States, but that
it is something from which we have to emerge successful. I draw some comfort
from things that were written about the U.S. occupation of Germany in 1946
and 1947, which were filled with skepticism about our ability to reconstruct
a nation that had been devastated by our making war upon it. Germany was
a tremendous success as was Japan but whether Iraq will emerge in those terms
remains to be seen. However, there is a tendency in the press to focus on
the bad news. I am guardedly optimistic but still appalled at the costs.
One issue you’ve spent a lot of time
focusing on is the future course of North Korea and
the heightened security tensions that have emerged
since the nation was included in the "axis of
evil" by President Bush in 2001. How do you
view the current situation in North Korea? Do you
think that current concerns can be resolved through
diplomatic means and is the U.S. administration taking
the right course of action?
I think there is a growing body of evidence that North Korea is making a
serious effort to change the way it deals with economic issues and that it
wants to become a nation that is qualified to deal constructively and effectively
with western markets. This is a very difficult transition to make. The South
Korean Minister of Unification at the end of September said at the Korea
Society that North Korea has moved from symbolic change to serious change
in economic terms but has not yet reached irreversible change. For that to
occur North Korea will need outside economic assistance. He hopes it will
be forthcoming from donors including the U.S. At this point the Bush administration
still seems to be divided. The President is making the right noises when
he says we are pointed toward a peaceful solution. But strident voices within
the administration and some of its outriders are expressing a very different
line talking about the possible need for force and their interest in regime
change. So I think the administration still hasn’t made up its mind
whether to negotiate seriously offering something in the way of security
guarantees before North Korea completely steps away from its nuclear program.
I hope very much that serious negotiations occur between the U.S. and North
Korea because I believe North Korea will give up their nuclear programs in
return for a security guarantee and promises of continuing economic assistance.
There has been a lot of talk over the past
year or two about the U.S. shift toward a policy
based on preemptive rather than retaliatory action
and anticipatory/unilateral decisions, rather than
multilateral consensus. What is your view on this
change in orientation?
I think one of the central issues in the next presidential election will
be a very spirited debate on the role of the U.S. in the world and how we
respond to it. President Bush’s team has brought with it a more aggressive
hard edge approach to our role, which he inherited from a policy group that
called themselves the “Vulcans “ before the election. They go
back to the Wohlstetters and Professor Strauss from the University of Chicago.
The events of 911 seemed to validate much of what they had said. Whether
or not the elements of unilateralism, preemption and regime chance will remain
central to the way we play our role is a great question that I think will
be debated vigorously in the next election and I think that issue will have
a profound impact as to who will emerge the winner in November of next year.
During the lead-up to the Iraq war, we saw
heightened tensions between the U.S. and its traditional
allies in Europe. In this regard, Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld highlighted differences between the views
of "Old" and "New" Europe. Do
you have any thoughts you can share with us on the
European Union and its place in the world, the contrast
between old and new Europe and their relationship
with the U.S.?
It is certainly true that some European countries such as Poland are emerging
in a new light and I am glad to see that. I am concerned however that our
traditional friends Germany and France are still not comfortable with the
approach we have taken in Iraq and to some extent so is the U.K., our closest
supporter and ally. The key is some new formulation that will give the UN
a greater role in Irag that will allow France and Germany to be involved.
This seems to be in the works although it is a difficult procedure given
the facts involved in the run up to the American invasion earlier this year.
I have heard you mention your belief that
the Middle East is at the forefront of U.S. concerns
and that if you were just starting out your career
you would likely choose to focus on this region.
What are your views on the seeming intractability
of problems within the region? Are we destined to
see accelerating amounts of violence? What are the
prospects for diplomatic and political solutions
to these problems?
We are more ignorant of Islam and the Middle East today than we were of Asia
50 years ago. We do not know the language, the religion and the psyche. I
admire the job our troops are doing in Iraq but it is an extraordinarily
difficult one. The Israeli-Palestinean problem is central and the complications
there are obvious for everyone to see. I think it is imperative that we maintain
and strengthen our relations with traditional friends in the Middle East
including Egypt Oman, Jordan and Morocco and through these relationships
do everything to demonstrate our interest in helping that entire region develop
economically.
One area of the world that has become increasingly important is Russia and
Central Asia, which possesses a wealth of minerals, energy and other natural
resources. As a former cold warrior, can you talk a little about this area
of the world and its prospects for the future?
As someone with a long CIA background who saw Russia as the main opponent
during the Cold War, I am convinced that a positive U.S.-Russia relationship
is vital if the 21st century is to be better than the 20th century -- and
god help us if it isn’t. I think that President Putin is more or less
what Russia seems to need at the moment. I am glad to see that he and President
Bush have developed a good personal relationship and one that allows Putin
to speak very frankly about areas where he disagrees with us. I hope that
eventually we can reach the same degree of intimacy and honesty with the
Chinese leadership.
Thank you so much Ambassador Gregg for sharing your views with us. Before
concluding do you have any final thoughts you would like to leave with us?
I am more generally optimistic about the how the American system is working
in October than I was 2-3 months ago. I think a serious run-up to the election
has commenced and that all the things that have been mentioned in this brief
overview will be debated in a healthy way. This will enable the American
people to make an enlightened choice about the ongoing political leadership
of this country.