The following are the answers to questions about the KORUS FTA and national security made by the President on the program Dialogue with the President broadcast live this morning.

QUESTION: The issue of the KORUS FTA is also drawing keen public attention. Shouldn’t the National Assembly be normalized quickly so that it will be possible to discuss this issue?

ANSWER: I cannot overemphasize the importance of the KORUS FTA. It is important considering the effect on our economy and national security. The previous Administration concluded and signed the KORUS FTA. I thought they did a good job. The KORUS FTA now awaits ratification by the National Assembly, but the very politicians who forged the agreement at that time are opposing its ratification. That situation seems to me to be regrettable.

Korea’s economic growth has been ascribed to increasing exports. Thanks to efforts by the corporate sector, Korea became the seventh largest exporter. Exports are the only way for the Korean economy to survive. As everyone knows, about 82 percent of the GDP is dependent on exports. FTAs are a must to further boost exports. All countries around the world are envious of Korea’s conclusion of FTAs with the United States and the European Union.

Korea has a small land and a high population density. It is remarkable for Korea to have concluded FTAs with 45 countries. In the history of the Republic of Korea, was there any time for the country to expand its economic territory globally like this? It now has become the largest in the world.

I hope both ruling and opposition parties will stand together to ratify the KORUS FTA without exploiting it for political interests. We still have some time, but the United States is also hastening to ratify it. Once again, I thought the previous Administration did a good job when it decided to conclude an FTA with the United States.

Korea made some small concessions on automobiles, but agricultural, dairy and pharmaceutical products were negotiated additionally to Korea’s advantage. It is noteworthy that Korea exports 900,000 cars to the United States and but we import less than 10,000. We expect that the FTA would help the US politically. At the same time, we don’t expect that Korea’s import of the US cars would substantially increase. That is why I hope both ruling and opposition parties will agree to the ratification of the FTA.

QUESTION: The Government had said that there would be no additional negotiations. But it turned out the two counties carried out additional negotiations and changed some provisions. Many people feel that they would suffer loss because of the renegotiated provisions. These are some of the reasons that some political circles find it difficult to readily agree to the FTA.

ANSWER: It is possible to interpret it that way. But then, it is noteworthy that the Democratic Party in the US had objected to the FTA at the outset of the Obama Administration. In solving the problems facing the Korean Peninsula, I told President Obama as follows: The United States should not oppose the FTA solely for economic reasons but it should broaden its perspective. And he gave me a nod of understanding. Now, when he meets me these days, he says to me: “How come there are still Koreans opposing the FTA when I am just doing what I was persuaded to do by you?” Then he laughs.

In order to wrap up the FTA, Korea made concessions in the sectors with the least impact on its economy, and we gained some advantage in the agricultural, dairy and pharmaceutical sectors. The auto industry says that it has no problem at all. The auto companies favor early implementation of the FTA as it will enhance our credit rating. This is an economic judgment rather than a political judgment.

QUESTION: So the FTA that has been negotiated additionally does not represent a disadvantage?

ANSWER: No, not at all. The industry says that. The auto industry should know better than anyone else.

QUESTION: Concerning the sinking of the Cheonan and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, is the taking of responsibility by North Korea a precondition to the resumption of inter-Korean dialogue and the Six-Party Talks?

ANSWER: Whether we are discussing inter-Korean dialogue or the Six-Party Talks, the priority in inter-Korean relations is a change of North Korea’s attitude. Only when it changes its attitude will any inter-Korean dialogue be able to produce fruitful results. It may be politically possible to hold a summit, but genuine discussions should be made for the sake of common prosperity and peace on the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea has thus far perpetrated 13 major provocations, including the bomb attack against the presidential delegation at the Aung San Martyr’s Mausoleum in Myanmar and the downing of a Korean Air plane. Nonetheless, the Republic of Korea has always endured such provocations. Whenever North Koreans committed provocations, they made proposals for inter-Korean talks after a while. Every time they did so, they demanded rice and fertilizer aid from us. Even though we have endured and pumped so much aid into the North in the past, nothing has changed. I think a strong response to any provocation will reduce the chance of any further provocation in the future.

Given various situations, North Korea must know well by now that its provocations will not work anymore. The North now makes a proposal for dialogue, the typical tactic overused in the past, but the international community understands Korea’s position and is sympathetic to it.

North Korea’s attitude must change. We have an economy more than 40 times the size of North Korea’s and formidable military power, but we have endured their provocations so far. It is time for the North to come forward for genuine dialogue, not provocations. With such an attitude, the South and North can talk about inter-Korean dialogue to discuss economic exchanges and the Six-Party Talks. North Korea should stop nonchalantly urging us to come forward for dialogue as if nothing had happened. That is because doing so shows a lack of sincerity.

Nevertheless, working-level dialogue has already started. I will see whether North Korea has really changed. It should take a stance that eventual peaceful reunification needs to be based on mutual benefits and harmonious coexistence.

Countries around the world are in competition to create jobs and help their people lead happy lives. However, the North is spending huge amount of money in the arms race. A cut in the military budget of 20 or 30 percent could address their food shortage. North Korea has to change its attitude. It has to be a genuine change. An opportune moment seems to have come for the North, thus we are expecting change.

QUESTION: Will a South-North Summit be possible?

Answer: If necessary, we will hold a Summit. South Korea has continuously urged the North to change its attitude by asking it to take responsibility for the sinking of the Cheonan and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island. North Korea began showing some signs of change even before the recent US-China Summit. It is now given a good opportunity.

QUESTION: How do you assess China''s ability to influence change in North Korea? Some people point out that South Korea''s diplomacy is relatively lopsided toward the United States.

ANSWER: On the surface, it may seem like that. In my opinion, a strong Korea-US relationship is beneficial to relations between Korea and China. To put it other way, the ultimate goal of Korea-US relations is not to compromise China-Korea relations but to deter an outbreak of war and maintain peace. The relationship between Korea and China was upgraded to a strategic partnership under this Administration.

It is not right to divide the world into them and us—China-North Korea versus South Korea-United States. The UN Security Council sometimes shows such a tendency. However, cross-border relations should not be viewed from such a perspective. With regard to the shared goal of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, China also holds the same view as we do.

I would like to see China invite Kim Jong-il as often as possible and Beijing and Pyongyang become even friendlier. By doing so, North Korea may be able to start reforming. The only viable course for the North is to open up and reform, taking a cue from the Chinese model. That is why I ask the Chinese leaders to meet with the North Koreans often. I appreciate Beijing’s efforts in this regard.

China is the largest importer of Korea’s exports and offers us many investment opportunities. For China, Korea is the third most important export market, preceded only by the United States and Japan. We do not have to beg Beijing for economic benefits because the two countries are equal partners.

The Korean Government has been insisting that China should be different than in the past and that it needs to behave fairly and responsibly in the international community. Beijing has agreed with us. Going beyond what people see in the media, the two countries are carrying out substantial dialogue and are maintaining a deep relationship.

QUESTION: So far, the high-ranking officials in foreign affairs and national security have made many hard-line remarks against Pyongyang. They are the ones who will eventually meet their counterparts in the North. But the North might want to avoid them. With this in mind, do you plan to replace them?

ANSWER: I do not plan to reshuffle posts related to foreign affairs and security. There is nothing wrong in having officials whom the North might think are difficult to deal with. We have a superior economy and armed forces. How can we always satisfy the appetite of the North? It is about time the North heeded what we want.