Transcripts For CSPAN North Korea Policy 20171201

Remarks by the lawyer of congressman conyers regarding the women who accused him of sexual harassment. If you missed it you can find it online at cspan. Org. Starting now, take you live to a discussion about diplomacy and north korea. This is being hosted by the u. S. Institute of peace in washington, d. C. Live here on cspan. I was waiting for a cue. Great. Thanks. I was waiting for a hi sign and we dont need one. Its not like all that. Usually you wait for the guy in the headset to give you like that and we are a little bit less formal today. Thank you for being here to this presentation from america abroad. Its a show that brings social issues at home. Im todd. Ost of the takeaway from international and wnyc. I have been excited as i have been preparing because the issue of north korea is rising to the forefront of americans minds. These are experts here with me and you are well versed in this topic as well and Many Americans for the first time in a long time are starting to think a lot harder about north korea, about the potential threat and about what it means for them and everybody in washington is thinking about it as well. Im glad that you are here and im glad to be part of this. Im joined by four panelists who bring a wide range of perspectives on north korea. First is our host, frank, who is the u. S. Institute of peaces expert focusing on Korean Peninsula issues from 2001 until this year. Frank served as Senior Advisor for north korea in the office of the secretary of defense. Welcome. Frank thank you. [applause] todd thats it. He is your host, after all. Jean was the First American granted access to north korea, and in 2012 she became the chief of the Associated Press pyongyang pure bureau. Shes a global fellow at the wilson center. [applause] and an a. P. Reporter which makes you my colleague in the press. Jean former a. P. Reporter. Todd anthony is at the end. Senior fellow for the defense of democracy. Former government expert on targeted financial measures, sanctions against hostile regimes. He was part of the sixparty talks on denuclearization, and a nonproliferation advisor for the United States and hes here to guide us through some of the questions of sanctions as we move forward. So its good to have you, anthony. He deserves a hand. [applause] you all know glen ford who is furthest to my right. Member of the European Parliament for 25 years focusing on asia related issues. North korea on the brink, author. Glen, good to have you as well. [applause] so before we start our discussion, lets start with the news. Its a good place to start. The latest Ballistic Missile launch from the North Koreans. Now, north korea claims this flew toon altitude 10 times the height of the International Space station. That might not mean as much but it went so very high that it can go so very far. Now that missile could land on chicago or maybe cleveland or maybe even my hometown of hershey, pennsylvania, if kim decided that was a place he wanted to hit. Lets hear from u. N. Ambassador haley. I think we have audio. Ambassador haley we have never sought war with north korea and today we dont seek it. If war becomes its because of continued acts of aggression like we witnessed yesterday. And if war comes, make no mistake, the north korean regime will be utterly destroyed. Todd the United States ambassador to the united nations. Frank, let me start with you since youre our host. This latest test, the latest in a long series of Ballistic Missile tests that we all watched, does it change the state of play in a fundamental way, the fact this missile we are well aware not only could reach the west coast but the continental United States, is this a continuation of a new positioning for north korea or do you see something fundamentally different . Frank well, thank you, todd. So youre right, the test that north korea conducted earlier this week is the latest version of their Ballistic Missile. It was the very large missile, had advanced second stage capability and it can pretty much range is 8,000 miles. It can cover all of the United States. I wouldnt call it necessarily a fundamental shift in a Technical Capability sense. We knew this test was coming. They conducted similar tests in july, two i. C. B. M. Tests. If theres a fundamental shift i would say its more could potentially be more in their political posture because kim jong un has said before he wants to simultaneous develop the Nuclear Weapons program as well as the economy and now with this test he stated that north korea has finalized the Nuclear Weapons force. So we may be looking for a shift in north koreas regime towards more economic development. We may even see a pivot to an opening engagement. Todd one bit of speculation or analysis that i heard is we will track developing weapons, developing the economy, suggesting kim is looking for space now now hes proven he has this capability, back off, leave me alone, let me restructure my economy without interference from the americans or from the South Koreans, do you buy that sort of strategic take . Frank thats what he said since hes implemented that its called the line, dual track, development of the Nuclear Weapon. I believe since 2013. Well see. It remains to be seen in upcoming months whether that policy will move forward now that hes secured his Nuclear Weapons. Todd one of the features of this show is input from people around the world and from listeners and viewers. This is a videotape clip from a student at Hancock Academy of Foreign Relations in south korea. Lets play this clip. This is probably in korean so for the benefit of some of you i will translate after a minute ere. [speaking korean] todd i want to learn more about the specific ideologies that President Trump might have. Since the Nuclear Issue is a problem for the entire world we must understand each countrys policy. And then she asks if she had a many for President Trump and her response is, please study the history. Using twitter does not mean you are communicating with the people. Who wants to talk about twitter . Anyone want to talk about twitter . Glen, im going to go to you. Well talk more about the substance but i want to you talk to about twitter for a moment because this is a very new way of communicating on the world stage. How the e a sense of north interprets twitter messages from the president , whether assaulting or bombastic, do they ignore them . Glen no, they certainly talk about them. I was in pyongyang last week talking about with the people in the Korean Workers Party. They talked about trumps twitter feed. Being british i am aware of him on twitter. After that one one really wonders. Having retweeted some of the most vial and material from the extreme neo nazi right in britain which is actually false videos seems to be wouldnt encourage North Koreans very much. His recent contribution this morning on twitter with respect to north korea was less than fully helpful in the sense one has to understand for the North Koreans, like it or not, i mean, kim jong un is almost a god. And if youre insulting if youre insulting him it makes it very difficult to get to come to the table. They are quite willing to put up if you want insults or threats of being wiped out, thats fine. They understand that. But actually going to the far. Of is a step too just look imagine what would happen in japan if you insulted the emperor. We know what happens in thailand if you insult the king. You get 20 years in jail. Todd who is reading twitter in north korea . A small handful of elites . Glyn the people who matter at the top, they get a daily they get an equivalent of references news which is a daily compli lakes news. Its being covered. I mean, part of the problem is they have all the information but understand what it means necessarily, they can talk about local Election Results in france or whatever, not necessarily capable of understanding. One of the problems they have with the United States, its a very different system from their own. They got to understand checks and balances and they dont understand the people in the same administration are actually saying Different Things at the same time. Todd jean, let me go to you and talk more deeply about american strategy. Its clear or seems clear the Trump Administration has abandoned strategic patience, the doctrine of the Obama Administration or have they . They have got to Great Lengths to rhetorically abandon strategic patience but if you notice a substantive difference, substantive shift in strategy or even tactics aside from the twitter feed from this administration than from the one or the two before it . Jean well, lets talk about that twitter feed. I will answer that. Todd go right ahead. Jean because of the differences we are seeing from obama era policy and strategic patience and the Trump Twitter feed is rhetoric. The rhetoric coming from the twitter feed is not only confusing to the North Koreans, also confusing to the South Koreans because it doesnt jive with the policy that the secretary of state is putting out there when it comes to dealing with north korea. The rhetoric, part of the strategy of strategic patience is, its kind of like when you have a naughty child, there is a theory you perhaps shouldnt give that attention the child is craving. Put it in the naughty corner. But part of that policy was to kind of ignore the provocations and not to kind of feed it. But what were getting with these really kind of crazy tweets from the president s feed is a rise in this war of words between north korea and the United States. Certainly what i think people in south korea are worried about is both of these leaders raise the rhetoric to the point where they cant back down. Its not going to lead the region into some sort of conflict so its very confusing to people in south korea. I have to mention those of us here in the u. S. And the North Koreans. I have to remind you that we have a state of an armistice and a ceasefire in place on the Korean Peninsula. So militarily were limited to a certain degree if we abide by that armistice. North korea knows that and is really trying to push things just really up to the limit. But donald trump, the president can threaten all he wants in his rhetoric but there is a limit to a certain degree if youre going to follow the code of conduct to what you can do in terms of military action. Of course, they can go ahead and do it, but there is an armistice or a ceasefire that has been in place since 1953. Something to keep in mind. Todd we are going to talk a little bit more about military options such as they are a little bit later in the program. Anthony, sticking on the twitter theme for one moment, another feature of the president s twitter feed when it comes to the north is pushing the chinese and sometimes encouraging them, sometimes praising them, sometimes insulting them as well, trying to get them to ratchet up and crack down on their client state, north korea. Somewhat of a client. Is that effective, not just on twitter but maybe using real diplomacy . How far has the Trump Administration gotten on their with their calls to the Chinese Government to get tough on north korea from their end . Anthony right. When you ask the question about comparing the Trump Administration policy and the Obama Administration policy of strategic patience, the relationship with china i think is the biggest example of the difference. This is the First Administration that has really gone after china with sanctions for their facilitation of north koreas sanction evasion. There are many times they have gone after one chinese bank. They have gone after many numerous chinese nationals. I think the interesting part to your point about public talking about how xi and trump have a close relationship, but its clear in private theres a tough message being delivered because in the for the trumps trip to beijing he was very public in his praise for president xi and only a few weeks later he comes back and there is strong sanctions against chinese entities. Id also come back if i can come back for a second back to the question of does this missile test mean now were moving forward on diplomacy or is this a sign . I have to caution, first of all, we saw larger Missile Systems in the april parade. So this is not the end of north koreas Missile Program. Its not the end of north koreas dangerous Missile Program. There are probably larger missiles they are working on now. And i remember, it was only monday, the day before the test, where people were saying that this 70day pause in testing was an opportunity for negotiations. And thats not true. What we now learned is north korea was using that 70day window to build a lot bigger missile to reach the United States. I think we have to be very careful about suggesting that the North Koreans will all of a sudden throw up their hands and say, ok, now lets have a negotiation. They only want it on their terms and its not on denuclearization terms. Glyn whats changed, not for this missile test, kim jong un said thats the end of that program. I mean, in the sense if they retest in the near future, thats a loss of faith for him. He says its complete. We are in a much better position than we have been in the past. I have to say barack obama described his policy as strategic patience. I term it malign neglect. The sanctions were on and they ere squeezing north korea. It wasnt a denine operation by any means. The key thing to realize is the administration completely misunderstands chinas influence. So frankly on the economy china has some ability to hurt north korea. Of course he doesnt want to collapse the state. The last thing they want is the u. S. Troops on the banks of the yellow river. Todd or North Koreans pouring into china. Glyn that will be 10 million in south korea. Two million in china. The people that have the big problem are in the south. The point being is china has almost no political influence over north korea. They refused the foreign minister to come about six weeks ago so this notion that some people still have. The north Korean Workers Party is some kind of subsidiary of the beijing the Chinese Communist party is complete nonsense. The sooner people learn that the better. At the moment hes pushing on a lever with no fulcrum. Todd i want to speak on china for the next part of our question but jean, you wanted to mention missile. Jean i read about the completion of the testing or program a little bit differently. I read them they have begun the inal process of this Nuclear Weaponry which they have a couple tests they may conduct. We cant relax. And i think experts agree they have to master reentry. There are a couple components they have a weapons system that can truly threaten us. Thats why i think every single test is dangerous for different reasons. We need to keep in mind there is some political posturing. Kim jong un did say on january 1, i will complete this by the end of the year. He had to show his people he has this timeline and wants to complete it. I expected a test i know everybody is saying, whats up with this 75day lull. I had been expecting one in december because the times that i have been in north korea in december under kim jong un this has been a time for testing because december is the month that his father kim jong il passed away. There are a couple domestic reasons why kim jong un wanted to test this missile. Todd what better way to honor your relatives. Frank, you wanted to add something. Frank yeah. So china doesnt have as much political influence on north korea as people say but they do have the leverage so its a reiteration to anthonys point that china has increased and forced sanctions and we have seen that over the last six to eight months. Todd now. Thats good because i do want to stay with china because we have another contributor from china. This is an Office Worker in shanghai. She has this message for President Trump. Lets watch the clip and im going to use my abilities for translation yet again. Look at china and russia. We are on great terms. Why do you have to do what you have been doing . You should not dominate the game all by yourself. I think that most Chinese People share this view. Anthony, President Trump may agree with him. Here the u. S. Has been trying to delve china into this process and many officials in china want. China is split on how far to go in pushing on the North Koreans. Isnt that right . When you look at the chinese options for sanctions . Anthony well, the chinese leadership faces a difficult decision. You know, they the North Koreans, they learned in 2005 when the United States sanctioned banko delta asia, banko macau they shupet have all their operations in place. While they have it in one country its diverse. The question for the chinese leadership, how long do they look away . I agree what the other panelists said, china has very little political leverage, but with the amount of trade they have with north korea its hard to claim as the chinese continue to do that they have really no leverage with north korea. Its clear that they have leverage with north korea. The issue here is really going to come down to the United States is going to have to use its own sanctions against china to get them to act. There hasnt been a lot of examples to the u. S. Sanction in china but in some of the cases where the u. S. Has acted first, the chinese have followed that with investigations and looking into the activities. And were going to have to see more of that. I dont think the chinese are ready to do that on its own on their own nationals but we have to get to that point. Todd i am going to trademark the phrase, dominoes sanctions. Us leaning on china so china leans on the north . Anthony the issue here is the chinese are willing to, i like to say, nibble around the edges a little bit, and target North Koreans that are engaged in these activities and certainly there are North Koreans engaging in these activities. There are far more Chinese Companies and nationals and banks that are engaged in this activity with north korea. And the question we all have to ask ourselves, the u. N. Is not going chinese are not going to allow the u. N. To sanction chinese persons so its really left to the United States. And, you know, just a part of history since i worked on iran sanctions as well. Exactly what we did on iran sanctions. The United States, a majority of the sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table were not u. N. Sanctions. They were u. S. Sanctions that were implemented by the United States and a group of likeminded countries and thats probably what its going to come down to with north korea and the question its going to be, is china going to be the one that sanctioned or are they going to be the one that help implement those sanctions . Todd well, sanctions are [inaudible] glyn if youre not stopping north korea develop Nuclear Weapons, will the sanctions stop the process coming, so what are they there for . Anthony ive written extensively on this since i left the u. S. Government. Its pretty clear, you know, if you look at the numbers, just even back to february, 2016, looking at u. S. Sanctions alone, north korea was eight in countries sanctions programs and that was before it had done numerous Nuclear Tests and missile tests. It was behind such, you know, large tests in the United States as zimbabwe and the balkans and other countries that certainly were not as much of a threat to the United States as north korea was at that time. Glyn i understand the argument for sanctions. Sanctions were supposed to stop north korea becoming a Nuclear Weapons power capable of hitting the United States. Now, its very clear that the sanctions you have now will not stop that happening. The c. I. A. Assessment is the capability of hitting the United States with a Nuclear Weapon is three months. Do you think sanctions will help in eight weeks . Anthony thats your opinion. I will say the goal of sanctions is denuclearization of north korea through negotiations. And i will also use the iran example again. I remember very clearly that people said iran would never return to the negotiating table. They said that you can never go after irans oil revenue. That would be a third rail. And other things like that. The North Koreans have not yet felt what it is like to have the United States government use iranstyle sanctions on them. You know who knows that . The chinese know that. So i think the clear issue is, will the north korean regime, the elites, the military and the weapons programs be able to continue to get revenue when chinese banks are sanctioned and they are not able to process those transactions for them . Todd anthony, youre making the argument and im glad you did because i was going to ask about this anyway, that there is a lot of left room left to squeeze, that the sanctions are not done. We are coming up on a break soon because this gives me an opportunity. Sanctions can be a twoway street. You can the sanketter but the sanketee is part of the equation as well. I want to get maybe a minute or 90 seconds from each of you we can go down the line. Glyn, well start with you. What do you think north korea wants from this entire confrontation . Do they want out from under tions, do they want room glyn regime survival. They see two things. First, they need a Nuclear Deterrent. Not capable of competing with the United States on conventional weapons. They are spent by a factor of 50 with United States, japan an south korea. And then they want to develop the economy. They have to develop the economy so the people that matter, the two billion people in pyongyang, actually see rising standards of living and preferable the rest of the country as well but they are the key people. Thats what its about, regime survival. Frank i do. I dont have anything to add on that point but i do want to reiterate the u. S. Intelligence community assesses that theres no amount of pressure that would get kim jong un to give up his Nuclear Weapons. Senator corker admitted as much on a meet the press interview a couple months ago. The question is advocates for sanctions will say we now have a tougher set of sanctions right now. Three years, four years. That may be the case. The question is, do we have the time to wait for the sanctions to kick in . Jean i would agree, we dont have time. It takes a couple of years before sanctions truly bite. Of course that is enforcement of sanctions and it takes time to make sure all the countries are enforcing them. I do think i can tell i was in north korea earlier this year and the people i worked with were very concerned about a fuel emback barringo from china. And so that embargo from china. So that is one area. The United States is trying to convince their partners on the u. N. Security council to agree to that. That will affect the daily ives of the North Koreans. Todd i think you would agree that a fuel embargo would go a long way. What do you think the north wants from this entire this entire confrontation . Anthony sure. I think they want a unified Korean Peninsula under the rule of the north korean regime. I think thats pretty much their longterm goal. I think just broadly on sanctions, im sure well discuss this later but id be very interested to hear the other alternatives because to me with a country that has violated almost every negotiated settlement that weve had with them and im not advocating for sanctions on its own that im interested in what the other panelists im sure well get into it later see as an alternative to sanctions. Sanctions only take as long as we are willing to implement them. I think the Trump Administration has made significant strides over the last 10 months, but, you know, i think that the intelligence assessment is interesting, but perhaps well see what happens moving forward. Todd before we come right upon the break which is in just a minute, i want to do postprerogative, again, frank, since youre your host, talk about your neighbors a little bit. We are across the street from the state department. Foggy bottom. There are some Rex Tillerson news. It would appear in the Trump Administration fashion that the secretary of state is on the way out. When you look at american diplomacy with the south, with china, with north korea such as it is even though the president said Rex Tillerson was wasting his time trying to talk to the North Koreans, is this shakeup that were in for disruptive or does it not matter at all in frank well, its hard to comment on something that hasnt happened yet but i would say so one of the issues with the current policy is that i think the Trump Administration has been very clear about what theyre trying to do. Theyre trying to maximize pressure against north creea. They want to isolate north korea. They want to cut it off from the International Financial system. That part is very clear. I think whats not clear and very muddied is how they message their openness to engagement. So, for example, President Trump will say that hes willing to meet with kim jong un. Then he will tweet talks are a waste of time. I think also in between between what President Trump says and what his senior Officials Say there hasnt been a lot of consistency. So i think if you have a new secretary of state, i think the name out there right now is the c. I. A. Director, mike pompeo, if hes more align with President Trump, at least hell have some better consistency in the messaging. Todd in the messaging if hes more lined with President Trump, does that mean more actual pressure . Is there any practical thing that happens on the diplomacy end if you get rid of this sort of separation of vision between tillerson and trump that weve been told existed . If they become more aligned, what happens . Frank i think the way President Trump articulated the strategy initially back in may after the review was that it was a strategy of maximum pressure and engagement. I feel like the engagement part fell off and people didnt understand what engagement meant because there didnt seem to be any effort on engagement. How i interpret engablingment from the administration, theyre engaging diplomatically to put pressure on other countries to enforce sanctions. So thats one definition of engagement. Glyn thats not engagement. Frank thats probably one plausible way they are defining it and that would be consistent with trumps message. Todd we are going to take a short break so everybody can take a sip of water. Well reset want when we come back, well talk about whether this whole situation actually has us closer to nuclear war which is really the question behind all of this, whether its likely or not. And were also going to hear from some people whove been through it. Stay with us. [applause] todd welcome back, everyone. Thanks for getting settled. Welcome back. Its good to have you all with us. Its been 72 years since the world has seen the destruction caused by Nuclear Weapons. Most people have no real sense of what a nuclear bomb means, but one does have a sense. He was 13 years old and living in nagasaki when the United States dropped the atomic bomb on his city. He lived about two miles from ground zero, and somehow survived even though the bomb devastated his neighborhood. Thats just amazing. Two days later, he and his mother visited the epicenter searching for their family members who lived nearby. Heres how he described the scene. This clip is in japanese so im going to translate this one as ell. He says houses were gone. Nly only the steel bars stood. Factories were entirely bent. Todd well, today he is a Nuclear Engineer himself and hes an activist against Nuclear Weapons, and as he told us, he feels things are going in the wrong direction. Listen. He says its especially disconcerting the current japanese government is actually feeding the military threat. The United States and japan claim that north korea is provoking but the United States has come all the way over to do military exercise in close proximity to north korea. So it appears to me, rather, that its the United States that is provoking war. I want the United States to stop provoking. Instead, work to create the conditions to make dialogue possible. Glyn ford, i think that a lot of people in japan might feel differently from mr. Tanaka there. They have seen north Korean Missiles fly over their territory . Glyn where else could they go . Todd well, let me get the question out and then i want you to eafpblet people in japan have seen north Korean Missile tests flying over their territory, right . They had air raids, sirens going off in exercising. What do you make of what mr. Tanaka has to say about glyn well, i have a lot of sympathy with mr. Tanaka. Why do they have air raid sirens going off because they want to get rid the only way to do that is to frighten the japanese people which is why japan is not interested in a settlement of the north korean situation. That would mean he would lose his referendum even with the north korean threat. Opinion polls put him 66 . He will call a referendum. Japans interest is to make every phone ring every time there is a north Korean Missile within 1,000 miles. If you want to launch a medium range missile, there is no other direction to go. Todd so you think the government of japan has a sfake in alarmism here . Glyn absolutely stake in alarmism here . Glyn absolutely. They are the ones that wrecked the sixparty talks. I have great sympathy with the them. This is why the North Koreans wont go away. Why they refused consistently to go back to the sixparty talks. They werent a venue that was going to get anywhere. Todd frank, is the experience in japan with american Nuclear Weapons part of their culture now obviously, does that experience and the nightmare of it feed into the modern japanese approach to north korea and the potential threat that they represent . Frank well, i think the threat has always been there so north korea has had Nuclear Weapons for at least 10 years,. The Nuclear Shadow has been there over south korea, its been there over japan. Longrange the test its grown in the United States. But i would add its one thing to have the capability. Doesnt mean they are going to use it. And so i think north korea is not suicidal. They know if they were to ever attack the United States or its allies that we would respond with overwhelming force and that means the destruction of the company of the country. I think really the concern is that sometimes we tend to nitpick north koreas test. We will say, oh, they didnt achieve this, they didnt demonstrate a reentry vehicle. What north korea may do is proved beyond any doubt they have this capability. The concern is they would demonstrate a missile test with a live warhead, that does an atmospheric detonation over International Waters and that would be a game changer for us. I think another concern for us is that north korea may now mistakenly believe that they have a Nuclear Weapon capability so they can keep the u. S. Aside and they can run amuck and coerce south korea and do a lot of provocation for their purposes. Todd well, we started with japan and lets go to south korea now because we have another contributor that i want to help drive our discussion here. This is pardon me. This is yun kim who has a clip and i will translate this as well. I dont have to translate this. I can give my korean a rest. Glyn or japanese. Well, i guess the first thing id like to know is, why is the u. S. So afraid of north korea . North korea has a very tiny army. Even if it gets icbms which it s working its way towards, they still have a quantitative and qualitative edge both with conventional and nuclear capabilities. The North Koreans know if they do anything, if they go to coon flict with america, they will just definitively lose, so why is the u. S. Making such a big deal out of north korea . Todd we have had a lot of analysts and experts and journalists, maybe even you on the takeaway on my show explaining that South Koreans tend to be much less excited about the north korean threat than americans are. Is that true . Jean it is true to a certain degree. South koreans have been living with this threat for decades now and they have to go about their daily lives. Remember that they are they are living in a country thats extremely competitive. They have everyday concerns that they are much more concerned about. I remember as a child when i was visiting south korea, we used to have these regular civil air raid drills at 2 00 and you have to pull your car over to the side of the road, take cover. Frankly, i think people dont even stop what theyre doing right now. Theyre so oblivious to some of these threats from north korea. That said, things are a little bit different right now. I think the uncertainty and the lack of clarity in terms of what President Trump might do has unnembd some South Koreans. Unnerved some South Koreans. And also whats interesting, there is a growing call in south korea among some parts of the population for south korea to arm itself. I think its kind of reflective in what the student was saying. Some people are calling for their own to have Nuclear Weapons reintroduced to the Korean Peninsula. So this is a really Interesting Development i see happening in south korea. Todd frank, you have experience in the diplomatic world. We are talking about the potential of military confrontations and how these societies view the threat. Youve been around the negotiating table. How does the actual threat of violence, the actual threat of war, if there is such a threat, really inform these discussions . You were at the sixparty talks. Those were defunked. How does that go how talks proceed . Anthony this is really the debate over we can have a policy deterrence. You know, i think the students question is a good one. I think its and i think frank mentioned this as well that, of course, north korea is not suicidal. I dont think any of us thinks that. I think north korea sees its icbms and Nuclear Weapons programs as a way to prevent the United States from coming to south koreas aid and probably protecting japan as well. And so the question here that, you know, one that i think people have been struggling with is, can you Deter North Korea . You know, can we a possible policy solution, can it just be, lets just not give them this credit and attention for these provocations and lets just say, you know, you do whatever you want but you cant attack the United States or south korea or japan . I will say, of course we can Deter North Korea from those military strikes. But the problem with that is the policy and that gets to the students question is, you cant really use that as a policy to Deter North Korea from proliferation. For example, north korea built a Nuclear Reactor in syria that was destroyed by israel in 2007. If our policy is similar to strategic patience and just saying, lets not worry about this, we can, of course, Deter North Korea. Lets focus on Something Else, especially Something Else with china, right . Then are we prepared to have a north korea Nuclear Weapons program and icbm program that it will sell to anyone whos willing to pay for that . And thats really the crux of the policy debate with north korea which is, you can have deterrence as an element of that policy, but what is the other part of that policy . And thats where i think we get into the debate of sanctions versus diplomacy. Just want to make one last point is that a couple of times panelists up here have noted, you know, it seals like the u. S. And the japan are not interested in settling. Its interesting that that question really needs to be on the other side. Is north korea really interested in settling . Yun has bassador joe been trying i think to get the North Koreans to respond. His latest response is, theres no signal from north korea. So if you want to have negotiations, as they say, it takes two to tango, right . If the North Koreans are not interested in negotiations, you know, where does that leave us . We cant just show up to beijing and the state house where the sixparty talks were before and sit at the plenary table and say, ok, were ready for sixparty talks. It doesnt work that way. The North Koreans have shown nothing jean i think eventually they do want to get to the negotiating table but they are doing it on their own timeline. They want to get their Nuclear Weapons to a point where they can sit at the table with their peers. Thats what theyre thinking. Anthony i would say thats the danger there. Russia sees in this as aroundan arms control negotiation, a discussion amongst nuclear peers. With north korea replacing the ussr in those negotiations and thats plainly unacceptable for the United States. I believe it should be unacceptable for everyone, that we would suggest that we would end north korea as an goal. Of course they have Nuclear Weapons now. North korea experts have this, you know, most of us have this flaw of thinking about it in silos. If we accept north korea as a Nuclear Weapons power, the Iranian Regime will stand up and say, of course, lets renegotiate that nuclear deal, and you know what i want, i want the north korea deal. I want the deal where i and tehran can get a Nuclear Weapon. So we have to be careful about the precedence that were willing to set here with regard to global nonproliferation. Todd one moment. In just a few minutes, i want to tell our audience here at the institute for peace, were going to it up to q a from all of you. Thats coming up in about 10 or 12 minutes. Im telling you now so you can get the juices flowing, start to think about your questions. You know all the different areas of expertise that these panelists bring to bear. In a few minutes the mike is going out in the audience so i leave you with that. Glyn. Glyn you are saying we should set a precedent with north korea but you set a precedent with israel. You set a precedent with india. You set a precedent with pakistan. In the worlds most proliferators, the pakistanis, hawking the gut centrifuging around the world. Where were the sanctions against pakistan . Where were the threats to pakistan where were the negotiations . No, it was fine. That was fine. North korea, oh, no. Theyre a big problem. So i mean, from the north korea perspective, its the u. S. Thats not being is changing rules of the game halfway through. Todd frank, youre the one around this table whos worked at the pentagon and you dont have a uniform on but you worked over there. The other inevitable part of this discussion is military action from the United States and its allies. I had admiral mike mullen on our show a couple of months ago, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and i asked him when you look at the big map and looks at the military options inside the pentagon as they it relates to north korea if any of those options are good, he said none of them were good. That was a short answer. There is a longer one that you may have thoughts on viable military options if any really exist. Is there anything the United States can do failing diplomats here to really brush back the north Korea Nuclear and Missile Program . Frank well, i am not going to object to what admiral mullen said. Thats my first point. Theres certainly military options. I wouldnt call them viable military options because they all entail significant loss of life. There is a recent Congressional Research Service Study came out that said even within a conflict, you could have 30,000 to 300,000 deaths and obviously those numbers go up exponentially when you have Nuclear Weapons involved. So that being said theres other things you can do militarily that may not beess clatory enough that would put us be esclatory enough that would put us in conflict. Its hard to think a lot what those are. If you have a kinetic action that strikes, even say, one missile facility, you know north korea will respond because based on history when theyre pressured they dont wilt. They certainly persevere. They almost always fight back and retaliate. Todd it sounds strange and right, it sounded strange to me. Theres a language of military. You called it kinetic action. I like that phrase they use over at the pentagon. You have the option of a devastating strike that hits pyongyang or you can send two cruise missiles to one site and those two things say Different Things to the victim. Just a pin prick strike says were not going to wipe you out, were just sending a message. Interpret that as message sent did. That type of language work with the North Koreans . First the North Koreans have to interpret whats happening and theres a danger that they misinterpret whats actually happening. Thats the first problem. Theyre acutely aware from studying the iraq war and the rest. But they literally have minutes to make a dfplgts lets hope that they appreciate the distinction between two missiles landing somewhere and a fully fed assault. Thats the first problem you face. Secondly, there are talks about pin prick strikes. Theres talk about if you want to shoot down a missile in flight, might get away with that because kim jong un can say that was a missile failure. You strike or disappearing a submarine or hitting a t. L. On the ground. I mean, hes not going to survive very long with his own administration. This is not a man on his own. His military agree with what hes doing as well. So hes not going to survive if he doesnt fight back. How about bringing down a Computer Network with some very creative worms and viruses . I think ive seen that before. Hang on. I mean, the u. S. Is doing that. Why do you think the missiles are failing . The North Koreans woke up to that and rewired their whole Missile Systems or whatever and they started to work. They also read the newspapers about what the israelis and the americans were doing in iraq. So fine. Thats going on. I think that would work. Its not a very computeroriented society. Its not quite like the states or europe. They can get by without computers probably better than anybody else can. Lets get back to kinetics for a second. Because the United States has thousands of troops in south korea. Huddled on a couple of bases. As i understand it, within range of north korean artillery. So we have to think two or three times about the ramifications of even a pin prick strike. The United States has 28,000 troops in south korea and in the region, 80,000 troops. We have 200,000 americans in that part of the world. So there are huge risks to any kind of kinetic i dont even know what i can netic action means. But there are huge risks to any kind of action that can spark or trigger military conflict. Not just to the Korean People or the japanese, but to americans as well. When i hear the words military options, we do hear the president threatening in very vegas terms that hes going vague terms that hes going to do something or handle it. To me, military option means the americans are going to remind north korea that they have some powerful tools in the region, a powerful force in the region. Nuclear operated weaponry. That they could unleash if they wanted to. And also remember that they carry out joint military drills , exercises, twice a year. With south korea, the North Koreans see this as provocative and they consider it a rehearsal for an invasion. I think this is something thats really dangerous right now because we have just to remind you that theres a Winter Olympics coming up in south korea in february. So this is something certainly on the mind of the South Koreans. The americans and the South Koreans have a joint military exercise thats going to overlap with part of the olympics and the paraolympic. And so this is a huge concern as well. Thats always the start of the cycle of tension on the Korean Peninsula. But thats also another sort of military option, is these joint military exercises. Not sure i answered your question. You did answer because the whole idea of kinetics is weird to you and it is to me a little bit too. Let me go to one more video clip. This one is from shanghai. From an Office Worker in shanghai, china, who asked not to be identified. Im not sure if im translating this one or its translated but guess well find out. South korea or slisstate lp from south korea or china they dont help or they dont want to be engaged, what would the u. S. Proceed . She wants to know if the u. S. Would engage help with south korea or with china. Its actually a good question. Former ambassador, am bar does chris hill was on our ambassador chris hill was on our show the other day. Former ambassador leader of the six party talks. He said that one of the motivations he saw on the part of the north right now is to drive a wedge between the United States and south korea. That these increasingly sophisticated missile tests are designed to divide the United States away from its allied relationship with the south. What do you think about that . Absolutely. One of the Major Concerns in seoul right now is something they call korea passing. A little bit of a [inaudible] phrase. The concern or fear that theyre being bypassed. And that the u. S. And north korea are in the middle of some sort of move toward bilateral discussions that wont involve south korea. South korea wants to be part of this discussion. They are really the ones whose lives are at stake here. Theyre desperately trying to make sure that they are at that table and at part of those discussions. Weve got kind of an ideological difference between the current president of south korea and the president of the United States. The president of south korea comes from his parents were born in north korea. So they were refugees from north korea. He has much more of a holistic, i think, sense of the Korean Peninsula. He sees hes concerned about the future of the north Korean People as well. He doesnt want the obliteration of either south korea or north korea. A little bit at odds, i think, of course right now hes very angry about the provocation. Especially with an olympics coming up. So he is trying to be tough. But he does eventually want engagement so theres a little bit of a difference in policy and approach between the u. S. And south korea. But he also wants to be at those discussions. Does not want north korea to create a situation where the North Koreans are only talking to the United States or the United States is only talking to north korea. And not including do you see the United States vulnerable to a play, if you like, from pyongyang, to divide us away from our allies from the South Koreans . Well, you know, i guess thats the part that surprises me the most. I would say that kim jong il was very good at doing that. And very strategic. His father, very strategic in getting incentives for giving up his programs and of course we all know that he didnt give up his programs. Thats pretty obvious. I was surprised with the election of south korean president that kim jong un didnt make an overtour towards south korea overture towards south korea to divide south korea from the United States. It doesnt seem like that has happened yet. Certainly could be something that he winds up doing. I think that unfortunately i think genes right, of course shes right jeans right, of course shes right, that president moon would like to have a different north korean policy than he has currently. His north korea policy, i think in his view, unfortunately is aligned with the tougher policy that the United States wants now. Whether its deploying or making statements about stronger sanctions. I think hed much prefer talks about reopening the Industrial Complex, the northsouth Industrial Complex and we can talk about how that violates sanctions but neers hour in day. But thats for another day. I think hed much prefer a trip to pyongyang and a conversation and talking about the olympics and having ceremonies associated with that. But he cant do any of that. Thats what he ran on and he cannot do that. Thats what surprises me. That kim jong un has not taken that opportunity, having that administration in south korea, to really drive a wedge between the United States and south korea. Hasnt done it yet. But maybe he will. Is kim aware that the United States does not have an ambassador in seoul right now . Because he might have an opening here if he wants to sow this kind of dissention that he has an opportunity to do. We dont have a top person there. Right. We dont have an ambassador to south korea. I do think that that point is maybe a little bit exaggerated because we have definitely a strong core of career officials at the state department that do the job very well. But it reflects concern amongst people in south korea and in the region about the lack of attention given to diplomacy. I think were short of people giving sensible advice. You have a general who i think is an exception is an exceptiony good man. I wouldnt worry too much about whether victor chow is going to arrive in seoul soon. Thats not the problem. Whats interesting of course is clearly kim jong un is not trying to divide if he wants south korea from the United States. Hes not made the kind of offers you expect him to make. Clearly thats not one of his ames aims. What would you expect him to do if that were one of his aims . What would be his best play now if he were trying to drive that wedge, which a lot of people expect . I dont think hes terribly interested at the moment. He was probably interested back in july when he thought there could be a difference. But then president moon made the decision that he couldnt afford to be further than lips and teeth away from trump because the danger danger was that south korea was going to be left out of the Decision Making loop and that was going to be bad news for south korea. I fully agree that i mean, the South Koreans dont trust President Trump. So in the shortterm theyre going to cleave to him short term theyre going to cleave to him as closely as possible. In the medium term theyre seriously talking not about u. S. Nuclear weapons, but developing their own Nuclear Deterrent because they dont trust the United States. And maybe rightly. To actually trade washington for seoul. So on that basis theyre going to be looking out for their own interests. The one thing we might see out of this is if south korea goes nuclear, japan will follow within 15 minutes. Were going to get a whole new environment there. I think thats the situation. The North Koreans realize that the results, their dilemma, they have to talk to the United States. Nobody else really matters in the end. Thats the solution. Theres a bit of peripheral work with the south, with the people who are going to be paying the bills because donald trump is not going ask congress to pay any bills for north korea and even if he didnt he wouldnt get it. So its going to be the South Koreans doing the heavy lifting with maybe some assistance from china, European Union, possibly and depends how long it takes, japan. One or two minutes left before we go to our final break and then on to questions from our distinguished audience here. We talked a lot about sticks. Weve talked a lot about sanctions. Weve talked a lot about rationing down. Lets give a moment of lip service to carrots. Youre the sanctions man. Talk about carrots for a moment. It may only take you a minute. What positive motivation do we have to offer the north right now and should we . Sure. I mean, im probably the rarer person that talks about sanctions that thinks we should be talking to north korea directly. I distinguish between talks and negotiations. I think that its valuable to talk to north korea directly. Im going to avoid listing out carrots because i would say my criticism of our negotiations strategy is that we would negotiate for both sides. In other words, we determine what we want from north korea, denuclearization, how we get to that point, and then we determine what were going to tell north korea were willing to give them in order to achieve that goal. Its north korea that should tell us what they need from us in a negotiated settlement. We shouldnt be coming to the table with a list of here are the number of sanctions we can release, heres the amount of heavy fuel oil we can give you, these are just past incentives that weve given them. And i would just say, my final point will be, that is the one area that were not talking a lot about. What would be the negotiation strategy in a renewed sixparty talks . Because remember, 2005 sixparty talks joint statement says no nuclear program, no Nuclear Weapons for north korea. Thats certainly not what the iran deal negotiated, right . So wed have to discuss that. And then we have to think about how do we flip it on its head and get north korea to commit to denuclearization up front . The flaw in the negotiations and the 2000s and the 1990s was that we send this long, drawnout negotiations that in the end did not lead us to denuclearization. There might be a book in your future on the fine art of making deals. I think theres a market for hat. Jean, carrot. I just want to follow up on something you mentioned which was, yeah, i agree that if were going to figure out what it is they want, we also have to understand who they are and what they want and how to reach them and unfortunately at this point in time we have we are at a point where we have almost no access and theres almost no interaction. Part of that is what we call the new york channel has been silent to a certain degree. Thats the north Korean Mission to the u. N. Also we have a travel ban in place on americans right now for starting in september. It will be good for at least a year. That prevents most americans from traveling to north korea. So theres so little opportunity for us to really get to know who they are. Thats certainly a concern of mine. If we dont know who they are, how do we even know how to punch them or reach out to them . But in terms of a carrot, im going to one of the interesting things when donald trump was campaigning was that he said, i would sit down with kim jong un and have a hamburger with hit it was kind of intriguing. There are reasons why you dont do that because it really legitimatizes the person youre sitting down with and thats certainly of concern. But i can tell you that thats exactly what kim jong un wants. It was antreeinging proposal to put out there and im very interesting to know if that could ever happen. A little bit of burger diplomacy which means legitimacy. Is that a good carrot . That is a good carrot and i think so we know exactly what north korea wants. Because they state it repeatedly. And i believe at this point the price has probably gone up. So we know they want to keep their Nuclear Weapons. They want relief from sanctions. They want an end to u. S. Hostile policy, which means ends to military exercises, removal of u. S. Forces from the Korean Peninsula. They want economic concessions. So we know what they want. Its just a matter of what are we willing to concede that allows them to get to the table or eventually get the goal that we want . And a peace treaty which is part of all this. Thats a bushle of carrots. I asked for one carrot. Ou gave me a bushel. A peace treaty, as simple as that. Come to the table. Negotiate. Were lucky to get one vote for a peace dwreet in north korea. This is part of the problem. Some of the things they want are impossible to deliver. Lets be realistic. You have to see it the other way around. Some things the u. S. Wants and we want, the European Union would really like the North Koreans to give up Nuclear Weapons. We cant get. Because you cant deliver some of the things they want. Lets be realistic about, were going to meet in the middle somewhere. That seems to me that the u. S. Interest is really about stopping the them dip definitively having the ability to hit the mainland u. S. A. Forget about the Nuclear Weapons. Thats gone. That ship sailed. That ship sailed in 2010, i think, which was the last time they mentioned the possibility of getting rid of their Nuclear Weapons. Another book in your future, glyn. Impossible carrots. Were going to take another short break. In about a minute or two that will give you a chance to get your questions ready. The mike will start traveling around the room because you have an opportunity to question these experts yourself. Stay with us. [applause]. Thanks very much. Well have a microphone circulating. If you have a question raise your hand. Well have the mike come down to you mic come down to you, well pass it to you and well call on you and well wrap it up then. Also make sure too, when ask you a question, identify yourself. And if you have a particular panelist you want to address to, identify who you want to address your question to. Also after, were going to do a couple quick radio things, quick retakes. It will take two minutes of your time. Just a little radio stuff. Just hold off. Well do consume quick things. A couple quick things. Be aware of that. And this is going to be a radio show. Its going to be all together on your local npr station. Like we always say on the show that i work on, this show relies on you. And this part of the show definitely relies on you. So do not be shy. Youre here because you care. About these issues. So this is your chance to get in. And i really want you to do it. Definitely want to hear from you. So please get in there. Were going to start in just one second. 25 speaker pro tempore todd welcome back, everyone, to our program, brinksmanship, u. S. North korea relations here at the United States institute of peace in washington, d. C. Were pleased to welcome back gene, el, frank, anthony, jean, anthony and glyn. Thank you all for being here. One last little round of applause, if you will. [applause] well, now its time for you to have your say and your questions. Ive asked plenty. And im looking forward to a little bit of a break. All i have to do now for the next couple of minutes is point to the audience and hands are already up. So theres going to be a mic coming around the room. Identify yourself and who youd like your question to go for. Lets start with the woman with her hand up right up there. Questioner hello. My name is bailey. I am a freshman over at American University studying International Affairs with an area in national security, human rights and conflict resolution. And ike to address mr. Aum anthony. Is making a deal with north Korea Possible or do you think it would be arguing with a child that wants a cookie but you cant give them the cookie but they really want the cookie . And if military intervention is reventable or necessary . I think is a deal is possible. But at the moment its looking very unlikely. Because i feel what the u. S. Wants and what north korea ants is so fundamentally irreconcilable. The u. S. Is saying north korea is saying that we absolutely want to keep our neek leer our Nuclear Weapons and the u. S. Is saying north korea can absolutely not keep its Nuclear Weapons. If you take this all or nothing max malist approach, then there really isnt space for diplomacy. I think there need to be a little give or there needs to be a focus or a shift away from that singular focus on denuclearization and a look at more practical, achievable, intermediate steps that give us the political space to later on tackle some of the harder issues. Ill start there. I would just remind people that weve tried the middle ground. Right . We tried it a couple of times. When we tried it in the 1990s, north korea built a covert Uranium Enrichment Program which was another path to a Nuclear Weapon. Then we tried it again in the sixparty talks. And north korea was building a Nuclear Reactor in syria. And even after that was destroyed by israel, the United States continued its negotiations, removing north korea from the state sponsor of terrorism list, blowing up the cooling tower and none of that worked. So i think we have to be very cleareyed, suggesting that theres this middle ground here. That sounds like the pessimist, but im actually the optimist. I do believe that there is a negotiated settlement where north korea denuclearizes and how do you achieve that is the type of sanctions that i was describing earlier. I know that everybody is a pessimist when it comes to sanctions. But there will come a time when chinese banks are punished for what they did for north korea. And then you will have chinese banks on the front lines, identifying north korean money that is sitting in china that is used for the elites, for the military and for the weapons programs. And what kim jong un is going to have to decide is which of those are most important. Ow he gets to rank those onea, oneb and onec. And hes going to have to rank them one, two, three. Thats going to be the issue for him. His revenue is going to dry up. His economic relationship with china is going to dry up. And that is the leverage that the United States can use to bring a negotiated settlement. We dont have that leverage now and i think we shouldnt get caught up in the provocations that distract us. Its a deliberate attempt by north korea to distract the United States from denuclearization. Todd how hard are you working to raise this strategy up to the Trump Administration . And to convince them that iranstyle sanctions are the way to go . Well, i think they already know that. I think that we certainly have conversations with them. I think theres some great work being done by organizations here in the u. S. , in d. C. In particular, one has written two groundbreaking rainstorms on Chinese Networks groundbreaking reports on Chinese Networks. If they can find it here in d. C. , some of the largest banks in the world, in china, can find it. I would also say capitol hill is watching is watching. Some of the sanctions that were passed last year and this year and executive order 13810 that was issued by this administration in september are in some cases carbon copies from the sanctions program in iran. The issue here is, is the United States administration willing to go and implement those sanctions . And in this case means going after china . And are other countries willing to move past from north korea . Were seeing some poifs, right . Over 20 countries have reduced commercial or diplomatic relationships. We need to see more. But that has only been in this really other the last year. Todd interesting. Thats the place to watch over the next year or two, i think. Lets go i dont want to give you too far to walk. To the front to this gentleman here. Questioner hello. Fascinating discussion. Im michael from the global peace foundation. Id like to hear from ms. Lee and the gentleman who spent extensive time in north korea, on their take on changes within north korean society, particularly as it affects the elites. The people in pyongyang, how important are they . And whats going to happen if their standard of living is steadily climbing, starts to decline . And then also the nexus between marketization and elite corruption. Thank you. The elites in pyongyang, the population of pyongyang is extremely important to the jet stream or to the leadership to the regime or to the leadership. Some people describe north korea as having a port economy. I like to think of it a little bit like a monarchy in a sense. You have to keep a certain number of people happy in order to win their loyalty. So thats extremely important. And remember that until fairly recently, so many of the elites of pyongyang were working on traveling overseas. The flights that i used to take were packed. With North Koreans who were doing business overseas. Studying. Or had other reasons to go overseas. Were seeing some of that stop now of course because of some of these sanctions. But that meant that they were exposed to what life was like outside their country. So they were developing a taste for some of these creature comforts. Iphones, i used to sit next to just like america the North Koreans would have to until me, the North Koreans would have to, until 2013 they had to lock their phones up in lockers at the airport. Now they can take them in once they register them. But often saw them with these devices that they became very comfortable with. So in some sense what weve seen since kim jong un took power is a lot of effort to try to make sure to keep that population happy. So ive been traveling there for almost 10 years. And i can tell you that its changed this is a country where change comes at a glacial pace, but in terms of the consumer culture, its changed quite a bit and that is directly because he knows needs to keep those people happy. Needs to give them some of those comforts. Whether or not sanctions affect their access to this kind of these kinds of creature comforts, i do think that were starting to see some of those fissures. Weve had quite a number of highprofile defections from that elite class in the past year. So perhaps were starting to see that theres a strain on even that population in pyongyang. The people of pyongyang are extremely important. Certainly very clear since around 2008 that theres been pyongyang was always privileged but theres been an enormous the privileging of pyongyang. You now have restaurants, shops , youve got a dolphin area water park. Outdoor ice skating rinks in summer. Horse riding stables when you cant have a ski slope in pyongyang but you have one in another area. Enormous privileging. You have borders around pyongyang. Anybody can leave. But coming back in, you need permission. This is a closed city. And its very important for kim jong un to actually deliver to those people. Which is the point im making. He believes he has to do two things. Which is the line. He needs Nuclear Weapons to stop regime change. Allah libya, syria, iraq ala libya, syria, iraq. And he needs to grow the economy. Theres a degree of incompatibility there and thats the tricky hes actually got to pull off. Maybe the sanctions will work. I expect at a certain point china is going to get fed up. The notion you can push china around as if its some third world country, i suspect doesnt work anymore. President xi will put up with quite a lot but theres a point where hell say enough is enough. You start interfering with chinas banks in a big way, and enough will be enough. [inaudible] i mean, i dont know. But im pretty convinced that there is a level of corruption in north korea. Its probably not entirely dysfunctional. If you look at levels of corruption around the world. Nige barely functioned because of corruption nigeria barely functioned because of corruption. There are other places where theyre functional. I dont think its interfering with the functioning of the system. To a degree its a bit like japan. In a way. You have networks, they have the same kind of networks. Most of the industries, most of the import, exports are connected to a ministry. So to a military unit to a military unit. To a section of the party. Theyre the protected ones. Outside of that youve got what i call the catalyst. The masterless people going out, creating the marketplace. Some make a lot of money. Most end up in the hands of the loan sharks. And lose their homes and their possessions. Thats capitalism. What they want at the moment is they want two country, one system. Thats what the North Koreans want. They want a separate north, a separate south. 25 years to grow their economy. Then theyll be in a position to unify. Todd lets see some more hands if we can. Maam there in the black sweater. Questioner hi. My names maria. Im with Korean Center for peace building. Thank you for this discussion. Question is about talks and what is the right way to go about encouraging those talks and who are the right players to lets say mediate those talks . It seems the situation is too polarized between the u. S. And north korea for there to be really direct talks without some sort of facilitation. So my question is, first of all, when you talk about the elite, are there people within that group that can be harnessed to be to come up with some sort of platform for talks . Are there intelligencia that can be drawn . Or is it only people from the Political Parties that can be engaged . You could talk about the potential for talks and how that might come about. That would be great. Todd jean, would you like to take that one . Its not dennis rodman. Does one of you want to take on the background are we talking about direct talks or track to talk . Ill make a quick point. Im sure glyn has something to safe. I want to reinforce the point that anthony made. Also provide some background. So in early 2015, north korea actually originated their proposal for a dual freeze which now china has taken up the mantle on. Then later in the fall of 2015, they also proposed peace party talks. So they have been proposing talks, certainly in recent years. But i think anthonys right that recently, at least since september, so theyve been silent. So if we dont have that partner on the other end, its hard to see that happening. Things may change. Things are fluid. But i think you need to have a willing partner. I suspect youre going to get a willing partner. As i say, i think the announcement, the best news of the third icbm was the announcement by kim jong un that hes finished his program. The logic of that is in the near future theyll now be willing to talk. He didnt have to say that. I suspect if the u. S. Doesnt get down to talking or if the talks failed, hell carry on with the program. I mean, you look at the history of the United States development of Nuclear Weapons, you have a serious of test, you develop a particular weapon, then a bit later you start another series of tests and you develop something different. There are places for him to go but at the moment [inaudible] todd whos next . Lets go to this gentleman down in the third row, please. Also with the black swert. Thats our theme sweater. Thats our theme. Questioner thanks. Aaron from the university of melbourne. So two questions. One, ive heard theres plans to close the sanctions office Want Department of state. And i wonder if iranianstyle sanctions are the way forward, whether that will affect the capacity of the u. S. To implement that regime. And the second is that the 2013 International Crisis group report on north korea suggested a positive way forward is really to avoid state tracks and to focus on sporting exchanges in the private sector, so around Adventure Travel, to open up new lynx. So i wonder if anyones got some good examples of where theyve been able to continue despite their travel ban situation. Todd anthony. Sorry, i wasnt able to hear the first question on sanctions. Todd would you mind if you restated your question just a little louder and use a radio trick. Get right up close to that mic. Questioner my apologies. So ive heard theres plans to close the sanctions office within the state department and so i wonder if thats going to reduce the capacity of the u. S. To implement an iranianstyle regime. You know, i would say that the decision to close the sanctions office in the state department, i think a lot of those responsibilities are going to be moved to other elements of the state department and im sure there will be others, whether its in the policy Printing Branch or in the east asia office that will be able to get other countries to implement north korea sanctions. I think what we saw also on the iran sanctions was that the Treasury Department actually played a larger diplomatic role where you had the undersecretary for the Treasury Department going overseas, meeting with banks and companies and countries directly and describing the sanctions. Im not, you know, i wouldnt focus as much on bureaucracies. I would focus more on are the right sanctions in place . Are is the Trump Administration actually implementing those sanctions . And are they pushing countries to be consistent in their interactions with north korea. Todd music to Rex Tillersons ears who tell us that there is no hollowing out going on at the state department. I wont comment on that. I think that traditionally secretaries of state have different priorities. It was only a couple years ago that the sanctions office did not exist. We were fine with sanctions. Todd good enough. He had a second one. Todd yes, you did. Did you want that question for glyn . Did you catch it . His question . Restate it one more time. Were going to do the loud mic. Questioner im stealing mic time here. The second question was about the 2013 International Crisis group report which called for positive moves forward in terms of sporting exchanges, private sector initiatives. So Adventure Travel programs. And not just from the u. S. , but from around the world. So i wonder if the panel has some positive examples of where thats continued, despite the travel ban situation. I think sports, you mentioned sports. Sports diplomacy has some potential. One of the only ways North Koreans can get overseas right now. We have an opportunity with the upcoming olympics. We dont know if the North Koreans are going to send a delegation. They have pair skaters who qualified. But sports is always one area. The North Koreans know this as well and they try to take advantage of that. So theres some potential there. But a lot of other avenues where people to People Engagement have been cut off. Todd no areas for the soft power of vacation planning to the grand canyon or the suburbs of pyongyang . No . Logically the more you engage the North Koreans, the better. If you want to change the regime. I mean, have engagement. Disengagement is entirely the wrong approach. I picked lithuania. Im sure there will be a lithuanian here. If they cut off diplomatic relationships, it doesnt matter a damn because they dont have diplomatic relationships in any sense of the term. United kingdom has an embassy in pyongyang it. Would be completely crazy for us to close that and throw out the North Koreans from britain. We want to get a dialogue. How the hell do you talk to them if youve thrown them snout out . The more engagement the better. Every time they settle for the icbm, id engage more. Just to be clear, i just want to point out the differences in evaluations. After 10 month, people want to declare sanctions dont work. But after decades of engagement with north korea that have not produced the type of regime that we want, the answer is more engagement. So i think we have to be consistent in how we evaluate our approach to north korea. 64 years of sanctions. No, we actually havent. Weve had 64 years of sanctions. Every time we have new, tougher sanctions, nobody says, this isnt going to work because were just playing. Every set of sanctions is going to be the one that works. Happy to send you my work. We can have that discussion. Todd im going to declare sanctions on this part of the debate. The audience has more questions. This gentleman on the end. Questioner hi, i work at the institute for defense analyses. My question is for frank. Given that youre recently removed from government and no longer on the under the bureaucracy thumb so to speak bureaucratic thumb so to speak, youre able to speak your mind, im hoping you can provide insight into how much care and consideration was given to past policy toward north korea under clinton and bush. And i ask that because an individual who you may know who ive had at length discussions with, evans revere, was pegged to be at the time the first u. S. Ambassador to north korea and he mentioned at the time state did have that on the table. All the things that north korea wanted. The peace treaty, the lifting of sanctions. And it didnt work. So thats why im curious to know how much under the Obama Administration there was that care and consideration to what the u. S. Had done in the past. Thats a great question. I can probably talk for a while on that. First of all id say that the u. S. Institute of peace is funded by congress. Were technically an independent organization. But were also mindful. So i wouldnt say that i feel completely free oh, youre slithering out of this one. [laughter] that being said. So, youre right. I think theres some discussion. I think the late 1990s about developing a special interest section, and people in the state department were studying koreans to eventually go and serve in that special interest section. I will say that the Obama Administration gave careful consideration to its policies and obviously i was a member of the administration. So i may sound biased. But i would argue that certainly it tried diplomacy early on in the first term. And we saw that leading to two deals. One is the leap day deal in february, 2012. Which was a moratorium on Nuclear Missile testing in exchange for 240,000 tons of food aid. There was also a deal that people dont know much about which is remains recovery. It was a deal for u. S. Soldiers to go into noh and north korea and help recover the remains of over 5,000 sefts u. S. Servicemen from the korean war. That fell by the wayside when north korea conducted a satellite launch in april, twelve 2012. I think in the second half of the Obama Administration, that was basically thats the same policy that trump is using right now. The Trump Administration policy is an extension of what obama did. Which was maximize pressure and build this coalition of the International Community to put pressure and isolate north korea. I think anthony would agree that the Trump Administration has probably done theyve really emphasized the maximize part. He may see some differences. But i think the strategy is basically the same. I think the Trump Administration, to its credit, has done a great job in pressuring not just north korea, but china. And im sure anthony can list all of the things that china is doing over the last year that suggests that the pressure is working. Todd satisfied . Its a good question. Theres a man in the back with is hand held high. Questioner thank you, hi. My name is kevin gray. Im based at the wilson center. I have a question again on sanctions. I guess this is directed to anthony. I think theres an assumption in what you say and what many people say about sanctions in that the more strong they are, the more successful theyre likely to be. But im not sure thats necessarily the case hiser to ly, if you look historically, if you look at when sanctions have been applied. I think the stronger sanctions were not against iran but against iraq in the 1990s, which went on for years. And led to, by some accounts, to the death of half a million premature death of half a million children. Theres a huge human cost. But i think the reason for that is that sanctions work through very specific its not just about how strong they are but about the political and socioeconomic mechanisms through which they induce change. If you look at north korea, its actually i think one of the countries thats least susceptible to sanctions. Because of the nature of its politicsment and its economy as well. Which is actually very selfefficient. So north korea, its not only authoritarian. Its almost totalitarian. It doesnt have splits between elites like iran did. It doesnt have a Civil Society like south africa did. So, all these things make me very skeptical about the capability of sanctions to induce policy change in north korea. Todd why dont we keep it there. Thats a really fine place to stop and get an answer from anthony. Sure. Yeah. Ive heard a lot of these arguments. I think that we have to look at what is north korea spending its money on and thats what i mentioned earlier. I think that the comparison i made with iran is more that iran was targeted financial sanctions. I think the iraq example was more during a time when we had more of a broadbased, countrybased sanctions program. I think when you look at the end of the iran program, we were probably closest to that. But the rampup is whats considered targeted financial sanctions. I think were somewhere in the middle, toward the end of that process with north korea in the sense of whats already been implemented. But, yeah, i agree. I think the issue here is that this is not a regime that cares a lot about its people. And so ive heard this many times as a criticism of sanctions. That the north Korean People will just continue to suffer and thats sanctions fault when really its the and thats sanctions fault when really its the north korean regimes fault. How do you restrict the revenue thats going to the three levs that are theyre using for regime levers that theyre using for regime survival and that they dont have to make that determination snow the elite, the mill now . He elites, the military weapon military and the weapons program. Theyre keeping money in china. Thats a significant vulnerability for them. And so the issue here for north korea is going to be if china starts to restrict that voluntarily or involuntarily, how will they react . And then what and then the questions you raise of, how will that react amongst the elites and then within the Civil Society . Those are certainly open questions. I think the way it worked with iran is that eventually we got to a point where there were severe pressures on their economy and in the case of iran, one of their commodities in the sale of oil that was restricted overseas. And that they got to a point where that leverage, they had to release that pressure or these drivers, these Civil Society and elite pressures could have been overwhelming on the regime. Thri thats i think theres one other, im just going to add onto that, theres one other way to look at sanctions and thats to look at it as a possible tool for diplomacy in a sense that if north koreas continuing to build up its program, you also want to have if youre on the other side of the event negotiating table, you want eventual negotiating table, you want to have something you can negotiate away. Thats another way to look at it. Lesk rack. Thats the thing. If we walked into negotiations today we dont have a lot of leverage. When i talked about deterrents not preventing proliferation. If were not getting to denuclearization, sanctions is a way to prevent that proliferation as well. The sanctions are working, theyre going to be hurting ordinary north korean men, women and children and not the elite. Todd im going to exercise my leverage here and tell you that we just have about four or five minutes before were going to wrap up. So the place where i want to wrap up before you leave us today is with what i think is the bottom line of this discussion. Were going to go to each of you just before we wrap up. Frank, youre going to go last since youre our host. Youre going to the to get the last word on this. How urgent is this problem . This problem we spent the last 90 minutes talking about . Are we actually closer to war than we were a year ago . Absolutely. Quite how close we are, i dont know. To the atomic site used have the famous clock advancing toward midnight which was when the next nuclear war was going to happen. It used to be three minutes until midnight. Id say were one minute until midnight. If you talk to people in washington about what the possibilities are, they talk 10 , 20 , 30 . Those are increditably high numbers because if you ask someone 10 years ago, we were down around 0 . Were in a worrying position. It seems to me that the only way you get out of that, there are three roads to war at various speeds. One is to take military action. One is covert action, which is we havent talked about the u. S. Policy of change regime. The third one is sanctions. Because if they really start hurting, do we think kim jong uns going to come to the negotiating table or engage in military adventurism . And the fourth one, the only peaceful solution, is through negotiations. The sooner we get there the better. Todd gene, saberrattling, jean, saberrattling, texts, are we closer to cron fronttation . Theres so much potential to be drawn into some sort of conflict. We have 80,000 u. S. Troops in the region. How many more do we have from north korea, south korea, poised and ready, braced . With this last missile test it was just not that long after that the south korean army conducted its own missile test. So clearly they were prepared. But im just going say Something Else. Which is, i am not so concerned about the prospect of nuclear war. But i am, as somebody who lives on the Korean Peninsula, concerned about every test and the dangers posed not only in terms of safety, i mean, theres an entire mountain in north korea that collapsed after the last nuclear underground nuclear test. Think of all the radiation that was transmitted into the air. If we have another nuclear test its possible it might be above ground. Hugely dangerous. And then also i want to just mention the cost to the north Korean People. This is an expensive program. And they are diverting resources away from basic infrastructure. Just want to tell you. Normally in the past, this is the time of year when i was in north korea freezing. They dont have heat, they dont have electricity. They have limited electricity. Clean water. Running water. Toilet. I mean, its a difficult place to live and by allowing this program to continue, were taking food out of the mouths of average North Koreans. So i do worry about i just want to remind you that the people of the Korean Peninsula are also paying the price. Todd anthony, your final thoughts if were closer to war than we were. I dont think were closer to a military conflict or war. I am concerned that north korea will engage in mailtary action like they did seven in a military action like they did seven years ago to sink a south korean naval vessel and kill over 40 south korean sailors. Im concerned that the North Koreans will interpret really r inaction in 2010 as an ability to do Something Like that. I think thats really the danger i see that something happens and that it escalates quickly. I would also say that we have to be careful about creating that we can just have some talks with north korea and that we will, you know, magically be able to wave a magic wand and sthove issue. I think we need to be very careful about the drive by beijing in particular to drive up the danger and say that were going to have a military conflict. And the only solution is a flawed nuclear deal, a freeze for freeze. I think that makes us more dangerous. I think the 70day over 70day pause clarifies that north korea continues these programs even when we think that they are already stopped. So the only solution, the only peaceful solution right now, continue with sanctions to create the leverage for denuclearization talks. Todd frank. Last word. So, i think at the current trajectory, the situation is very urgent. Either trump, President Trump is serious about what hes saying. So when he says firing fury, when he says the calm before the storm, when he says the window is closing. Hes he either means it, in which case the situation is urgent, or hes bluffing in which case we kind of go to a status quo where we continue to contain north korea we continue to turn north korea. But at the same time we open ourselves up to a situation that anthony mentioned which is where we sort of stumble into a conflict because of a conventional provocation. I dont want to leave it on a pes pessimistic note. The situation is fluid. Things can change. I believe in sanctions. I believe in the saying that sanctions dont work until they work. I think theyre necessary. But also theyre not sufficient. I think the same applies for diplomacy. Diplomacy doesnt work until it works. I think theres a good track record in the 1990s of diplomacy working. The framework of eight years, it prevented the plutonium processing at young gun for eight years. Until the agreed framework was scrapped. So i think theres always the potential but the situation has to change for both the north korean side and the United States side. Todd i want to thank all of you for joining us for this program today. Its been a pleasure for me. I want to thank frank aum, our host. Thanks so much. Glyn, thanks to you. Jean and anthony, its been a pleasure. And thank you for having me as part of this. Its been a lot of fun. Have a great weekend, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National able satellite corp. 2017] thank you all so much. Thank you for the great questions. Were doing some radio magic stuff. Hold on a second. Pretend like youre asking them for editing purposes. Little pros. If you want to watch the magic, youre welcome to. It doesnt look like much. I promise you that. Three, two, one. Glyn . Frank . Jean . Anthony . It worked. When you hear it on the radio, youll be like, ok, i remember that point. Part. Thank you all. Inaudible] read in for the first clip. Were good. I dont think their goal is for them to be right and for us to be wrong. Its a live look at the senate floor where senator tim scott is currently talking about the tax reform bill. Law makers have been talking about several provisions in the Senate Version of the bill. Including a plan to remove the Health Insurance mandate. And tax breaks for hedge fund managers. Earlier today Democratic Senators announced talked about an amendment senator nelson offered saying it would help the middle class. The chamber defeated the amendment and after the vote, senator nelson tweeted his response. Senate republicans just voted down my amendment to make the modest middle class tax cuts permanent instead of a tax increase in a few years. Proof that this g. O. P. Tax bill was never about helping the middle class. Heres a look at what he had to say about the amendment earlier