Rapid technological change is challenging the traditional definition of war, Rosa Brooks and Peter Neffenger told Pacific Council members at Spring Conference 2017.

Brooks is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and a columnist at Foreign Policy. Neffenger is a retired vice admiral and the former administrator of TSA. The discussion was moderated by Karen Richardson, former deputy assistant secretary of the Bureau of Public Affairs at the U.S. State Department.

"In the last 15 to 20 years, our traditional understanding of what war is has really been challenged as the result of technological developments," said Brooks. "Take cyber for example. It’s now possible given available technology to achieve the traditional ends of war—a level of disruption and instability—using a method that doesn’t necessarily involve any bleeding but is just as disruptive. As we go forward into the brave new world of bioengineered viruses and information operations, we’re going to be seeing more things that create disruption on a level we associate with war but just don’t fit very neatly into the traditional category we call war."

Brooks said that it is getting harder to determine what counts as war and who counts as a combatant. Neffenger agreed that this change is blurring the rules of engagement on the battlefield.

"In traditional wars, there are very defined rules of engagement," he said. "As you get into the realm of drone strikes—not direct human-on-human action but the more distant technological piece—it’s not clear where the transfer takes place, and where you cross from legal to illegal."

"All of our assumptions—about what war is, about what a state is, about the adequacy of our legal frameworks—are breaking down and we’re struggling to adapt."

Rosa Brooks

Brooks pointed out that many people would be hard pressed to define war in the first place.

"When we think of war, most definitions assume that it’s violent, it involves physical force, there is bleeding or the possibility of bleeding, it involves lots of people fighting in an organized way, and it’s got a political purpose to it," she said. "But now we’re seeing all of our assumptions—about what war is, about what a state is, about the adequacy of our legal frameworks—are breaking down and we’re struggling to adapt."

Neffenger added that this has been a challenge particularly for the military, which he said has done a "remarkable job of adapting to this very fluid enemy out there that looks very different from place to place."

As the TSA administrator from 2015 to 2017, Neffenger also faced the challenge of adapting to a fluid enemy.

"What I tried to do at the TSA was to think more offensively and try to evolve faster than the terrorist groups were evolving," he said. "There’s a difficulty in identifying the strategies they’re using. There are a lot of them out there and they morph and change. And there’s a reticence on the part of security agencies to change something they’ve been doing because it’s risky to take a chance. So we tend to play a very defensive role. We try to go back to those old standard definitions that are hard to place against them. We think we understand what it is and we get a system to fight what they did before, and eventually they just find a way around it."

Brooks said that the increase in global interconnectedness means the next big threat could come from anywhere and in any form, which forces the military to make almost impossible decisions about priorities.

"Even the U.S. military can’t be everywhere and do everything," she said. "Traditional conflicts are still going on, and at the same time we need to think about cyber threats, chemical weapons, bioengineered viruses, and Russian influence campaigns. Destructive power has simultaneously been democratized and concentrated. It’s now possible for one individual or small group to unleash carnage and destruction on a scale that used to be associated with states and their militaries. How on earth do you set those priorities?"

"Troops on the ground actually do serve as diplomats on a day-to-day basis, but my concern is when we start to see everything as a job for the military and forget all the other tools we have."

Peter Neffenger

Brooks warned that the United States is entering a vicious cycle in which "the more capable and respected the military is, the more everything starts to look like a war."

Brooks and Neffenger emphasized that diplomacy remains incredibly important. 

"Troops on the ground actually do serve as diplomats on a day-to-day basis, but my concern is when we start to see everything as a job for the military and forget all the other tools we have," said Neffenger.

Brooks agreed that troops can serve as diplomats, adding that she is not a fan of the budget cuts to development and diplomacy organizations the Trump administration is proposing.

"On some deep level, I care more about the United States getting done the things it needs to get done than I do about who does it," said Brooks. "That said, there is nothing more political than the decisions we make about who should kill, who should die, where we’re going to use lethal force. Any notion that the military can or should somehow magically stand outside of politics is an illusion. It has always been political and it always will be."

Neffenger said there is a lesson for the world to learn from the peace deal between the Colombian government and the FARC rebels.

"That’s been ongoing brutal guerrilla warfare for a long time, but yet they managed to find a way to negotiate and look past the animosity," he said.

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Before Spring Conference, Rosa Brooks contributed an op-ed on why we should be wary of the wars of the future. Read it here.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.

Europe is facing internal and external pressures that could undermine EU stability and trigger a reversion to a nation-centric continent, Ambassadors Colleen Bell and John Emerson told Pacific Council members at Spring Conference 2017.

Bell served as U.S. Ambassador to Hungary from 2014 to 2017. Emerson served as U.S. Ambassador to Germany from 2013 to 2017. The discussion, moderated by Ambassador Susan McCaw, a Pacific Council director who served as U.S. Ambassador to Austria from 2005 to 2007, also covered topics such as the refugee crisis, Brexit, and the rise of populism.

"Europe is at a dangerous inflection point," said Bell. "It is undergoing a series of fractures at the supranational, EU, and eurozone levels between the European nation states and their leaders. The severity of the crisis is fueling populists and euro skeptics and challenging the EU’s coherence and effectiveness as a partner for the United States, particularly on issues such as trade, migration, Russian aggression, ISIL, and climate change."

Emerson said that "most Europeans feel about Brussels the way that most Americans—and certainly those who voted for Donald Trump—feel about Washington, D.C. Brussels is way less transparent and harder to understand and decipher than D.C. is."

Bell said that any meaningful discussion about the EU needs to include representation from some of the smaller counties.

"What we relied on, the unifying influence from what was the big three—France, Germany, and the UK—no longer exists, while smaller countries—Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland—are coming together and digging their heels in on issues like compulsory quotas for refugees," said Bell.

Emerson offered lessons learned from Germany’s attempt to integrate refugees into its society.

"In Germany, once you’re within the EU where one of the fundamental tenets is the free flow of goods and people, building fences really undercuts one of the fundamental principles of European unity," he said.

"The severity of the crisis is fueling populists and euro skeptics and challenging the EU’s coherence and effectiveness as a partner for the United States."

Ambassador Colleen Bell

"The fundamental lesson of integration is that it requires energy and effort both on the part of the host nation and on the part of the refugee," he explained. "First, the refugee needs to learn the language. Second, get the kids into school as quickly as possible. Kids tend to assimilate more quickly, they root for the local teams, they learn the language without an accent, and then they can help the parents. Third, 70 percent of the refugees into Germany were military age males. If these people are sitting around with nothing to do for two or three years, and with Salafists reaching into these camps to recruit people for ISIL, that is a bad formula. And finally, refugees need a path to citizenship, and this is a place where Germany does a poor job. I told them they’re not going to get immigrants to fully commit to assimilation if they don’t see that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow."

Emerson acknowledged that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open border policy has had it fair share of consequences, including the rise of populism.

"From her perspective, as someone who grew up in the former east, Merkel felt in many respects like she was a refugee. The welcoming spirit and economic support that the previous West Germany provided to folks coming in from the former east, she really felt this on a deep, visceral level. German people were incredibly embracing about the situation. The refugees kept coming until the point where there was a great deal of anxiety but it wasn’t [politically correct] to be blunt and express that."

The populist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which started in opposition to the euro, quickly adopted a xenophobic, anti-immigrant platform in response to the influx of refugees in Germany. Emerson said he expects the party to reach the 5 percent threshold needed to gain seats in the Bundestag (federal parliament) in the upcoming September elections.

"I anticipate AfD getting into the Bundestag—they’ll definitely get over that 5 percent—but absent a scenario like the refugee surge in summer 2015 or a series of terrorist attacks directly linked to people who came into Germany, I don’t anticipate AfD will be a huge movement in this election," he said. "I think that 15 percent is probably the ceiling for where an anti-euro, anti-immigrant, pro-nationalistic party can get in Germany."

Emerson added, however, that AfD and its equivalent in France, Marine Le Pen’s National Front, are directly funded by Russia.

"It’s a strategic objective of Putin to drive wedges between and among EU member states, and certainly between Europe and the United States," he said.

Bell anticipates that Russia will continue its "aggressive and challenging" behavior.

"They have more patience than others," she said. "They’re carrying out hybrid-type warfare, including disinformation campaigns and a divide-and-conquer strategy. The United States and Europe need to stay strong on the sanctions because they are working. Americans need to realize how serious this is. We need a solution to this aggressive behavior. People should be thinking about red lines when it comes to Russia."

"It’s a strategic objective of Putin to drive wedges between and among EU member states, and certainly between Europe and the United States."

Ambassador John Emerson

On the topic of Brexit, Emerson said people in Germany were shocked at the result of that referendum.

"Merkel’s most significant partner in the EU was David Cameron—and he’s gone," said Emerson. "Why these guys decide to hold referendums and put their political careers on the line is beyond me. Renzi in Italy did the same thing. Hollande was incredibly weakened in France. All of a sudden, from Merkel’s standpoint, here she is standing on her own."

Bell said she was worried Brexit would set off a chain reaction, but that has not come to pass.

"I was worried there’d be a contagion, but now I think the sobering reality of what it means for the UK to leave the EU is causing pause for other countries who might have been considering that," she said. "They’re not getting as much traction domestically. It’s going to take years for us to fully recognize and see the economic and security impacts of Brexit."

Emerson added he thinks a domino effect is still a possibility, and laid out what needs to happen next.

"The fundamental challenge for the negotiating of Brexit is, it is clearly in the interest of the EU and of Germany to negotiate a Brexit that allows the UK to be as closely tied to the EU as they can without creating an incentive for other countries to say, ‘I want that deal,’ and the whole thing unravels," Emerson said.

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Ambassador Emerson recently contributed an op-ed on why America needs a strong transatlantic alliance. Read it here.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.

The White House needs to outline a clear strategy on Syria and North Korea, and obtain congressional approval if it wants to use military force, Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) told Pacific Council members during Spring Conference 2017.

Lieu represents California’s 33rd district in the U.S. House of Representatives. The discussion, moderated by Ms. Jessica Yellin, former Chief White House Correspondent for CNN, also covered other topics such as Russia, climate change, and more.

"I could support a change in U.S. strategy on North Korea if I knew what it was," said Lieu. "It is not a good idea to provoke North Korea. It’s clear that, unlike Syria, North Korea can do a lot of damage, not just to U.S. troops, but to millions of people living in South Korea. Seoul is about 35 miles away from the DMZ."

However, Lieu said, there is no imminent threat from North Korea that justifies a preemptive strike.

"If the president wants to do that, I believe he needs authorization from Congress," said Lieu. "For all we know, it will be years before they can launch an ICBM with a nuclear warhead attached that can hit the U.S. homeland."

The day after Spring Conference, North Korea tested a missile launch that failed immediately. Tensions have been mounting in the region, with President Trump sending a U.S. Navy carrier strike group to the Korean Peninsula and considering a kinetic military strike to cripple North Korea’s nuclear capabilities.

"You need to try diplomacy for at least 100 days before doing something like a preemptive strike," said Lieu.

"You need to try diplomacy for at least 100 days before doing something like a preemptive strike."

Ted Lieu

Yellin also asked Lieu if he thought last week’s U.S. bombing in Afghanistan was justified. The military dropped its largest non-nuclear bomb, known as the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB), on ISIL-K, a regional branch of the militant Islamist group in the Khorasan Province, killing 36 of its members.

"I believe when it comes to terrorists, we should hunt them down and kill them," said Lieu. "I have no reason to believe the MOAB bombing was unjustified. I’ve not read that civilians were killed because of it. I also am not sure that President Trump authorized it. My view is if we’re going to use force, we should win. Half measures don’t make sense.

"I don’t have objections to giving the military more authority to achieve objectives that the White House wants them to achieve," Lieu explained. "The problem is we don’t know what those objectives are. If you asked, ‘What is the U.S. objective in Syria? What is our strategy?’ We don’t know. If we use force there, it has to be tied to something. We need to make sure the use of force is attached legitimate objectives that help U.S. national security."

Lieu emphasized that under the U.S. Constitution, the president should not be able to engage in acts of war without congressional approval.

"With Syria, we saw a number of Freedom Caucus members come out against the strike because they knew it was against the Constitution," he said. "I don’t see a critical national security threat from Syria. Assad is an evil, bad, awful person, but it’s not clear he would ever attack the United States. I’m not sure we can solve this problem without a massive ground troop deployment for a very long time. I could support those things if I thought there was a threat to U.S. national security."

"My hope is that the American people will realize it’s not clear that we have national security interests in Syria, and we’ll draw down our involvement and entanglement in places like Syria."

Ted Lieu

Lieu added that he believes President Obama made a mistake in 2013 when he drew a red line on chemical weapons and then did not follow up when the red line was crossed.

"This time no red line was crossed, so I didn’t think Trump had to do anything in Syria," said Lieu. "My hope is that the American people will realize it’s not clear that we have national security interests in Syria, and we’ll draw down our involvement and entanglement in places like Syria."

He added that President Trump’s new interest in military adventurism is not what he campaigned on.

"When Trump campaigned, he said he was going to take the United States out of foreign conflicts," said Lieu. "What we see now is a much more forceful foreign policy than Obama. It makes you wonder if this person holds any principles. Some people see that as a good thing, that he’s very flexible. Not me."

On Russian influence in the U.S. presidential election:

Lieu discussed the investigation into Russia’s hacking of the U.S. presidential election, saying they "launched a cyber-attack and a very extensive influence campaign on our country. I read the classified intelligence report, I’ve read classified briefings on this, and I believe there is clear and convincing evidence in the classified materials to support the conclusions laid out in the unclassified report. Now they want to do the same thing in other countries such as France and Germany."

Lieu also called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to the investigation of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

"We know now that there were a large number of previously undisclosed meetings between Trump campaign members and Russia, and we know the Trump campaign worked very hard to make sure the GOP platform took a pro-Russia position on Ukraine," he said. "The only question to me is, ‘Were these Trump campaign folks just naïve and unwitting participants in what was a Russian operation, or was this one of those wink-wink type of things, or was it full on collusion? I don’t know the answer, but do I think it’s very possible that it was collusion, based on the sheer number of coincidences."

On climate change:

Lieu said one of the reasons he ran for Congress is because he believes "climate change is the greatest long-term threat we face. If you look at what’s happened over the last few decades, the conversation has shifted. It used to be that people would mock you if you talked about climate change. Now they don’t do that anymore. Most folks in Congress won’t deny climate change is happening, they’ll say, ‘We don’t know how much humans are contributing to it.’ That’s already a win."

Lieu pointed out that the U.S. military is taking climate change seriously, even if many politicians are not.

"Our military believes in facts and science," he said. "They don’t view the world as they think it should be; they view the world as it is. They say, ‘We need to respond,’ because it’s going to flood military installations, it’s going to increase the cost of energy for our troops, and it’s going to cause more famine and water shortages across the world."

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Before Spring Conference, Representative Lieu contributed an op-ed on why the United States should address the connections between climate change and national security. Read it here.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.

Bilateral cooperation on technology can boost the economies of the United States and Korea, experts told guests of the Pacific Council and the Korea Foundation during the first panel at the SeouLA Forum in downtown Los Angeles.

SeouLA convened business, civic, government, and academic leaders from the United States and South Korea to exchange ideas and discuss key bridges in the U.S.-Korean relationship, including trade policy, innovation, and economic and cultural ties.

The panel featured Dr. Sangkyun Cha, director of the Big Data Institute at Seoul National University; Mr. Jay Eum, co-founder and managing director of TransLink Capital; Ms. Kate Gordon, senior advisor at the Paulson Institute; and Dr. Jinhyung Kim, president and CEO of the A.I. Research Institute; and was moderated by Dr. Angelov Farooq, founding director of the UC Riverside Center for Economic Development & Innovation.

Kim set the scene, noting the challenges Korea faces and how new technology can help.

"The driving force of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is digital technology," said Kim. "Korea is a manufacturing country, in hard competition with China and Japan, but traditional manufacturing industries are not profitable... It is now Korea’s turn to transition to clean energy and other industries."

Kim identified technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) as a potential solution to economic dislocation.

"The gap between the haves and have-nots is getting wider," he said. "We need to have a discussion about sustainable societies... We have to reform education. Next year, we will start teaching software coding as a regular course in K-12 education. Technologies such as AI create jobs."

Eum agreed that Korea must innovate to reach the "next level" economically.

"If you think back to the 1980s, there was concern about the state of the U.S. economy," he said. "The manufacturing base was under attack, especially from emerging economies out of Asia. The largest companies today started back then, and most of them are tech companies. You can see how tech has played a key role in revitalizing the U.S. economy. The conversation we’re having in Korea today is similar to the United States 30 years ago. Korea has emerged from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the most successful economies."

If Korea hopes to follow the path of the United States in terms of tech, he said, Seoul will benefit from pursuing greater bilateral collaboration, including sending more Korean students to study at U.S. universities and to work at cutting-edge U.S. tech companies.

"If we are creating barriers or turning away the best talent that wants to come to the United States, then we are potentially jeopardizing our economic future."

Jay Eum

"What Korea could do a little better is find a way to facilitate not only acceptance to U.S. universities, but also opportunities to have Koreans work at U.S. startups," he said. "It’s one thing to get knowledge from an academic level, but they should also be getting experience at a practical level."

He added that tech communities are concerned about recent U.S. immigration and protectionist trade policies that might hinder collaboration and growth.

"The growth engine we’ve put together in the tech sector, which has powered the U.S. economy over the last 30 years, was due in large part to the many talented engineers who were the best and brightest from all over the world," he said. "If we are creating barriers or turning away the best talent that wants to come to the United States, then we are potentially jeopardizing our economic future."

Cha agreed that educational cooperation between the United States and South Korea will drive innovation and growth.

"A lot of academics are trained in the United States, so we need to keep this relationship and also strengthen [it]," he said. "The governments of both sides, Korea and the United States, need to sponsor bigger collaboration projects."

Cha said that one of the challenges Korea faces is that it is a smaller country than China and the United States, who are the big players.

"Korea is very dynamic," he said. "We have a lot of agility, we have a lot of educated people, a lot of people abroad, but one of the disadvantages of Korea is the scale. We cannot repeat what China and the United States do. We have to find our own space, especially now that China has come back from a long sleep in history. Korea is strong in manufacturing, but we have to go beyond that because with digital innovation, the guys at the top will control everything."

During her remarks, Gordon told the group about the Paulson Institute’s Risky Business Project, which examines the economic risks and opportunities associated with climate change and the transition to a clean energy future.

"Every major country in the world has agreed that we need to reduce our carbon emissions dramatically in order to reach levels that are safe," said Gordon. "This is often posed as a tradeoff between that goal and an economic one, in large part because we were powered by the industrial revolution. However, we’re starting to see through tech advances that there doesn’t have to be a tradeoff, that we can see climate change action as a driver of economic growth."

"Korea is an extremely fossil fuel-dependent country with a very low amount of renewables."

Kate Gordon

"Countries must use electricity that is mostly renewable, but not too much," she said. "This is not the current energy approach that Korea is taking. Korea is an extremely fossil fuel-dependent country with a very low amount of renewables—only 1 percent of the mix right now, although the government just announced a $36 billion investment in renewable energy, which is a great start."

Gordon said that even with the loss of fossil fuel jobs, renewable energy is a job creator.

"You cannot realize this kind of change without a strong policy framework," she said. "This is where the United States is about to fall behind. We’re reversing course. Other countries have an opportunity to pull ahead here. This is a moment of revitalization in how we power this transformation and meet the global demand for clean energy. It’s a moving market, and this is an area for Korea to look in providing new things in the world and showing leadership."

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Read more about SeouLA, including a summary of Tony Seba’s keynote address.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.

Major industries such as energy and transportation will undergo a complete "disruption" by the year 2030, Mr. Tony Seba told guests of the Pacific Council and the Korea Foundation during his keynote address at the SeouLA Forum on March 31 in downtown Los Angeles.

SeouLA convened dynamic business, civic, government, and academic leaders from the United States and South Korea to exchange ideas and discuss key bridges in the U.S.-Korean relationship, including trade policy, innovation, and economic and cultural ties. 

Seba, an instructor of entrepreneurship, disruption, and clean energy at Stanford University, is the author of Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation: How Silicon Valley Will Make Oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal, Electric Utilities and Conventional Cars Obsolete by 2030.

"If you look at any industry: healthcare, construction, energy, transportation; everything will be disrupted in the next 10 to 15 years," said Seba. "It only took 13 years, from 1900 to 1913, for New York City to complete the transformation from horses as the main mode of transportation to automobiles. If anyone in 1900 had said, ‘We’re on the cusp of a disruption of transportation,’ people would have said, ‘You’re insane.’ When disruptions happen, they can happen very, very quickly."

"If you look at any industry: healthcare, construction, energy, transportation; everything will be disrupted in the next 10 to 15 years."

Tony Seba

Seba defined a disruption as a convergence of technologies that make it possible for entrepreneurs and companies to utilize products and services that do two things: create new markets and radically transform, weaken, or destroy existing industries.

Seba identified four key technologies that are leading the clean (i.e. total) disruption of energy and transportation: energy storage, electric vehicles (EVs), autonomous vehicles, and solar power.

"Energy storage costs are going down so quickly that by 2020, the average American  household will be able to have 24 hours of energy storage at home for about a dollar a day," said Seba. 

The electric vehicle is disruptive in many ways as well, Seba explained. EVs convert 90 to 95 percent of the energy in the battery into usable power, whereas gas-powered cars convert only about 17 to 21 percent. Electricity is cheaper to move than diesel and gas. On a per mile basis, it is 10 times cheaper to charge an EV. Gas-powered cars have more than 2,000 moving parts; EVs have about 20, meaning they require almost no maintenance. 

"By 2020, an EV with a 200-mile range and the performance of a Porsche is going to cost $30,000, which is less than the median cost for a new car," said Seba. "By 2025, all new vehicles will be electric. The technology also already exists where EVs can power a house for two days, so they’re disruptive in more ways than one."

He added that if every car in Korea were electric, they could store 75 percent of the daily electricity demand in Korea.

Self-driving cars are another quickly developing technology. Seba pointed out that there are already self-driving taxis on the road in Singapore. There are 33 large, multibillion dollar companies—not just startups—working on self-driving technology. Seba called autonomous vehicles "computers on wheels," which is why a lot of tech companies like Apple, Google, Uber, Tesla, and others are developing self-driving cars that utilize deep learning technology to improve over time.

"Deep learning technology is quickly advancing," said Seba. "If a self-driving Tesla in Seoul learns how to avoid an obstacle, it uploads that data and every Tesla car will then know how to drive that way. The rate of improvement in self-driving is accelerating to the point where some people are talking about zero fatalities within a few years, by 2020. Every year humans kill 1.3 million people with their cars. We’re not great drivers."

Seba described a looming transformation of the transportation industry over the next decade. 

"The future of transportation will be electric, self-driving, and sharing," said Seba. "Parking will be nearly obsolete. This will be a huge disruption. It’s gathering momentum and the tipping point is going to be 2020. It will be complete by 2030."

"It is going to be in everyone’s selfish economic interest to put solar on their rooftops and share electric, self-driving cars."

Tony Seba

On the energy side, Seba said solar is another technology that will disrupt traditional industries.

"Every single form of traditional energy has gone up in cost: coal, oil, etc.," said Seba. "Solar keeps going down. By the end of this year, solar will achieve what’s called ‘grid parity’ in about 80 percent of global markets, which means that the cost of unsubsidized solar on residential and commercial rooftops will be at or below what we pay for electricity prices. Technologies have cost curves. They get cheaper and better as time goes on, and we can actually anticipate that. It is going to be in everyone’s selfish economic interest to put solar on their rooftops and share electric, self-driving cars."

He added that other key technologies to watch in 2017 include sensors and the internet of things, artificial intelligence and machine learning, robotics, 3D printing, and more.

"These technologies are going to disrupt and obliterate the entire energy and transportation infrastructure as we know it today," said Seba. "This is not an energy transition. This is a technology disruption. And this is going to happen despite governments, not because of governments."

"Korea has the skills, the technologies, and the infrastructure to be a winner and wealth generator in this disruption."

Tony Seba

He pointed out that South Korea is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this disruption in the years ahead.

"Korea has many of the key technologies and companies that can be disruptive," he said. "The GM Bolt electric vehicle was designed in Korea. It uses LG batteries and electronics. It’s a Korean car. The largest solar company is Korean. Korea has the skills, the technologies, and the infrastructure to be a winner and wealth generator in this disruption."

Governments in general, he added, can either help accelerate this disruption in their own countries, which will enable trillions of dollars of wealth creation, or they can help delay it—but they can’t stop it entirely.

"The governments that push back on this disruption are deciding to make their citizens poorer, and they’re going to use all kinds of excuses and ‘FUD news’—fear, uncertainty, and doubt—to do that," said Seba. "But those are the choices for governments. You can help lead or you can help follow."

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Stay tuned to the Newsroom for an interview with Tony Seba and summaries of our SeouLA panel discussions on economic revitalization through new technology and the status of U.S.-Korea trade.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.

Pacific Council director Ambassador Vilma Martínez has been selected to receive the World Trade Week 2017 Stanley T. Olafson Bronze Plaque Award. Presented by the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce since 1933, the award honors a member of the international trade community whose outstanding dedication, efforts, and achievements in the field have advanced global trade in the Southern California region.

The award is one of the Chamber’s oldest and most prestigious honors. It emphasizes efforts to increase awareness of the positive impact that international commerce can have on our region’s economy.

"This year a selection committee of Chamber board members and past STO recipients found Ambassador Martínez’s outstanding accomplishments in international trade to be exemplary for the award," the Chamber wrote in an email.

Ambassador Martínez currently serves as president of the Los Angeles Harbor Commission, which oversees the management and operation of the Port of Los Angeles, the number one port in the nation by container volume. The Commission under her leadership manages the promotion of maritime, commerce, navigation, fisheries, and public access to the Harbor District waterfront. She was also the first woman to represent the United States in Argentina as Ambassador. In 2013, she was awarded the Order of May in the grade of Grand Cross––the highest honor awarded by Argentina to a foreign national––presented by the president of Argentina in recognition of her work on behalf of improving mutual cooperation and understanding.

"Ambassador Martínez has had a uniquely successful and distinguished career in helping to promote and expand global trade opportunities in Southern California and beyond," said Pacific Council President and CEO Dr. Jerrold D. Green in a letter nominating Ambassador Martínez for this award. "Her long and distinguished career in public service and her work in expanding global trade opportunities, especially in Southern California, make her a uniquely and richly qualified choice for the 2017 Stanley T. Olafson Award."

Ambassador Martínez will receive the award at the 91st annual World Trade Week Kickoff Breakfast on May 4 in Los Angeles.

Recent recipients of the award include Dr. Abraham Lowenthal, founder of the Pacific Council, and the Honorable Mickey Kantor, a Pacific Council director. Past awardees include Walt Disney, Walt Disney Productions (1947); Jack Warner, Warner Bros. Studios (1955); and Tom Bradley, Mayor of Los Angeles (1984).

____________________

Justin Chapman is the Communications Associate at the Pacific Council on International Policy.