Rights observations by the International Community is the fact that north korea has been trying to become a Nuclear Weapons state. And i think that is particularly interesting when we look at iraq. You were in the Bush Administration for part of the time that this issue was playing out. And it turns out that we decided to attack iraq and overthrow saddam hussein. He didnt have Nuclear Weapons. The North Koreans arguably have just as oppressive a regime, but we decided not to pursue that course of action with north korea. How do you see the difference . Mr. Cha it is a tough question to answer. Without recounting the whole history of why the Bush Administration went into iraq, that was not my area of responsibility. So i am not really capable of commenting on that. But i think in the case of north korea, i think there are two issues. The puzzle is why iraq not why iraq instead of north korea, but if in iraq, then why not also in north korea . I think there are two answers. The first is that you have china, right . China sits right on the border with north korea. The last thing the United States or china wants is some sort of confrontation or conflagration on the peninsula that would cause the two to butt heads. Heads as they did in 1953. I think anytime there is serious thought given to some sort of military action, this is constantly at the top not even at the top, but even halfway up the escalation ladder, this is constantly a concern that every u. S. President has had to think about seriously. So i think that certainly is one of the reasons, the china factor. And the other is that the United States went into iraq or into afghanistan because it became the top foreignpolicy issue on which the administration saw a final resolution. Now, we can debate whether that was the right or wrong thing. Many americans think it was the wrong thing. Many americans think nothing was resolved there. And that is a completely different question. I mean, i think the point for korea is that i dont really think that the north korea issue has risen to that level of priority for an administration. It has been a crisis that you wanted to solve, at least in the sense of preventing it from becoming a bigger crisis through diplomacy. But the United States historically, when it has sought to solve a problem, it has been willing to use both force and diplomacy. Diplomacy to really try to solve the problem. And i think in the case of north korea, it is just not registered like that. And that is not specific to any administration. We have had crises with north korea with successive administrations, and every administration has made the same calculation. When we reach a crisis with north korea, are we willing to go all out to the end to solve this thing, or do we want a solution that will at least park it momentarily, put it on the diplomatic track, freeze it, cap it, and then move on to the other issues that most concern us, whether it is the domestic Economic Situation or iraq or afghanistan or syria or the middle east peace process. These tend to be the more important issues, traditionally, in u. S. Foreign policy. Mr. Snyder the other issue that makes iraq different from north korea is the u. S. Korea alliance. So, i mean, how do you see the dynamics of the alliance playing into our ability to address the top concerns that the u. S. Has related to north Koreas Nuclear program . Mr. Cha well, i mean, i think undeniably when we looked at the situation on the peninsula, the alliance was more important than any policy we have towards north korea. South korea is a key ally for the United States today. It is a major partner in a lot youit is a major partner in a lot of International Initiatives around the world. Big trading partner, all of these sorts of things make south korea extremely important to the United States in terms of its position in asia. Mr. Snyder let me go back and ask about north korean prospects for reform. They are still cash hungry. Maybe we dont see any immediate evidence that the leadership has committed to reform, but of course the chinese are always there, suggesting that the North Koreans should follow their path. What really is the way to cultivate an environment where north korea can move in a reform direction . At this point, it is so obvious they are looking for cash, but is there a way of drawing them into a positive path rather than pursuing the negative activities that we have been talking about . Mr. Cha the positive path that has been on the table, really i think for successive administrations and i know there are always conversations discussions about the extent the Clinton Administration was different from the Obama Administration in terms of how they dealt with north korea. In the book i go through these. In the end, the packaging may have been different, but there is a positive path that has been on offer. In return for giving up their nuclear program, the United States, the International Community would provide security guarantees, we would provide economic assistance, energy assistance, it would provide political normalization, money, it would provide a regional who it would provide a Regional Security environment in which north korea could feel safe and secure, all these sorts of things in return for giving up their Nuclear Weapons. But that has not worked. It has failed. It has failed for every administration going back to george h. W. Bush. And i think with the Obama Administration, we have really reached the end of the road for this because i think many would argue that the Obama Administration, at least in terms of initial intentions, was the most forwardleaning administration to come into office when it came into the north korea problem, and now it is in line with even the Clinton Administration took time during their two terms. What can be done in the interim . The most important thing that can be done is to get more information into north korea, more information in terms of what is going on in the outside world, in terms of marketization, in terms of cell phones. This is the only way to make inroads into seeing any change. But from the perspective of the leadership, economic reform is a doubleedged sword because on the one hand they need economic reform, they need money, food, these sorts of things. On the other hand, when the regimes like this open up, it releases all sort of Political Forces that inevitably lead to a loss of political control and even possibly be collapse of the regime. Bargain, forot a this leadership, that is inexperienced. That is the last thing they want to consider. So i am not optimistic on the prospects for reform at this time. Mr. Snyder but the way you framed it is very much a u. S. Way of framing basically a deal by which the Nuclear Issue is resolved. The chinese, i think, may have a different idea about what would be necessary that is not about quid pro quos. It is about the question of essentially you follow us and you can find a sustainable path. I think that is basically the argument. The question i have is based on what we have seen in china, north korea has not necessarily been willing to dip its toe in the water. How would we know if we began to see a north korean leadership that was moving in that direction . Could a north korean deng succeed . Mr. Cha i have many friends who are chinese scholars. When i talked to those friends, they are always optimistic about the prospects for north korea. I never understood why. They say it is clear why they are optimistic, because they have study china and they have seen china come from where it came in the cultural revolution and the great leap forward to being the country it is today. And they think in a big country like china, as complex and complicated as it is can do that, then certainly north korea can do that. There are two the differences here. Xioaping was the first is that china had their leader. He was a charismatic leader, largerthanlife figure. There is no one like that in north korea. The chinese said getting rich is glorious and making money is ok, even if it meant giving up a degree of political control. For the current north korean leadership and for the foreseeable future, there is nothing more important than political control. And that looks to be the case for the last vision and it looks to be the case with the current leadership. There are hopes this young fellow, kim jongun, who spent part of his life in switzerland in secondary school, people are hopeful he might be like the xiaoping. Ng given their recent crisis, missile tests, the failed Obama Administration tried to reach with north korea, i dont think there is a lot of hope right now, that he shows signs of being that leader. Maybe there is someone that is unhappy with the young leadership that has a different view on things. But we dont know. Right now, the prospects dont look good for that kind of charismatic leadership