Key Findings
Tokyo, Japan

View/Download Conference Materials

On April 11-12, 2019 in Tokyo, Japan, the Pacific Forum, in partnership with the Center for Rule-Making Strategies (CRS), with generous support of the Korea Foundation, Henry Luce Foundation, and Freeman Foundation, brought together young scholars and junior analysts (ages 25-35) from the United States, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Japan, China and other countries to explore approaches to regional security and multilateral cooperation in Northeast Asia.

Session 1: Country caucus
Delegates break up into five teams (Japan, United States, South Korea, China and other stakeholders) to independently discuss: (1) What are your country’s top three perceived threats in Northeast Asia? Why are they considered threats? Distinguish between short- medium- and long-term threats. (2) How does North Korea relate to your country’s threat perceptions? Regarding the North Korea issue, what are desired, acceptable, and unacceptable outcomes for your country?

Moderator: Brad Glosserman

Session 2: Comparing security perspectives in Northeast Asia
The plenary will reconvene and each team will present their responses to the prompts discussed during session one.

Moderator: Brad Glosserman

Session 3: Tabletop exercise deliberation
Country teams receive a tabletop exercise scenario and independently deliberate about how their country would hypothetically respond.

Moderator: Brad Glosserman

Session 4: Keynote remarks and roundtable discussion
Featuring US Embassy Tokyo Deputy Chief of Mission Mr. Joseph M. Young

Moderator: Keoni Williams

Session 5: Tabletop exercise assessment
The plenary reconvenes to discuss tabletop exercise deliberations. Each team presents their responses to the scenario and explains their rationale.

Moderator: Brad Glosserman

Session 6: Five-party talks
The plenary reconvenes for a moderated roundtable discussion that builds upon the previous session. Where do country responses converge? Where do they diverge? How do divergences in responses relate to divergences in threat perceptions? How could divergent responses be reconciled? To what extent is that possible?

Moderator: Brad Glosserman

Session 7: Country caucus
Country teams independently discuss how differences highlighted during the previous session could be resolved. Where could your team possibly make compromises? What would your team like to see in a joint statement? Teams then independently draft a joint statement that addresses the following points: denuclearization; an armistice agreement; sanctions; security guarantees; and military alliances.

Moderator: Brad Glosserman

Session 8: Joint statement and key takeaways
The plenary reconvenes for each team to present their joint statement and explain their rationale. Teams then vote on whether they would sign or not sign each version. To the extent possible, the version with the most votes will be modified until all parties agree to sign it. The session concludes with a roundtable discussion on key takeaways from the process. What divergences among countries were revealed? What could be done to close those gaps and move regional cooperation forward? What are the key lessons learned from this exercise?

Moderator: Akira Igata