(click here to return to the table of contents)

VIEWPOINTS & INTERVIEWS

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.