Peninsula. This runs one hour, 35 minutes. Chatter ble] good morning everyone, welcome to brookings. Im with the Foreign Policy program. On behalf of my good friend and alleague richard bush and of us here, welcome. Happy new year. Glad to discuss an issue we all know will likely be quite important in the new year and we hope with positive developments. We are all anxious about the state of the north korean prices. In todays discussion, which by the way you can see as being telecast on cspan and also as a japanese translation, todays discussion will begin with some by unitedat was done states and japan respectively with various other realizations and support. This is looking at United States and japanese attitudes toward the crisis across a range of issues. We will begin with that. Panelwe will convene a discussion at which time we will giving hismr. Kudo thoughts to further understand and embellish the japanese conventions. Richard bush, the head of our east Asia Policy Center along with others, he will broaden the discussion to think about south korea, obviously an interested actor in this equation and an important factor and will try to understand a little bit about Public Opinion, politics, and whatnot and finally, i will try to talk a little bit about military options or, in my opinion, the lack of good military options. This will follow naturally from some of the questions in the polling. Let me add a couple more words about our panelists. Chairy is the anwar sadat at the university of maryland, where he is at a distinguished career for many years. He is associated with workings brookings and one of the most eloquent voices at American Relations in the broader islamic world for many years and in recent years he has started a Critical Issues polling effort. That is where we get todays material. This is the first time he has extended in a major way to east asia. Much of that polling begin in the United States. I look very much to the results. There are a few reaffirmations of what you might expect. There are also potential surprises that we will have time to discuss and then have your questions. Sushikudo is the head of emron where he is on poland but also a he has done a lot of polling, but also a practitioner of track two dialogues with a number of countries including china and korea trying to improve japanese relations with those two other northeast asian powers. More generally, International Think tank and been involved in a number of initiatives on that front. Richard bush we have been colleagues here for a number of years. Think richard is the tom brady. Im not a patriots fan, but he keeps reinventing himself and is always outstanding. We really benefit from having him on the panel as well. I am now going to introduce and give the floor to our first speaker. We will have the Panel Discussion and then please join shibley toming brookings. [applause] thanks so much. Good morning to you and thank you for braving the cold to be here. Really appreciate that. This is a pleasure for me. Not only because we are talking about an important issue that concerns all of us, but also because we are partnering with japan to do twofolds, one in u. S. And one in the trying to see how the japanese and americans differ on the issue of north Koreas Nuclear program and beyond that, asia security. Im going to present both the results together so you can see them sidebyside. For that reason, i am not going to show the breakdown in the u. S. Democraticrepublican because we would it would be hard to prepare the same time. I will mention some of them as i go through, but everything is posted online. It is posted on the university of maryland Critical Issues poll website and on the brookings website. Certainly the methodology is posted there but all of the results are posted including the breakdown. Feel free to pursue this after the presentation. If you have questions, there is a lot more data and breakdown as well. Let me start with the polling methodology i have as i said, in japan, a sample of 1000. Our poll, we usually do it with Nielsen Scarborough it is an online panel. A is an online panel and sample of 2000 and among the panel. We also have an oversample of young people just to have more confidence about the what the young people are thinking in the u. S. The methodology is posted and you are welcome to look at. Lets start with one of the first questions that we had. Which of the following do you believe is the most effective way to stop north Koreas Nuclear program . If you look, the blue is japan. The red is the u. S. The most striking thing here is look at the two middle options the one that says stricter sanctions against north korea and military action by the United States and its allies. You see how very few agree with those options. In the case of japan, only 11 think stricter sanctions will work. In the case of the u. S. , 7 . The same thing with the military option, 8 and 11 think those would work for it. Slightly more republicans think that is possible, but 17 so still not huge on this issue. Instead, the u. S. And japan in the case of the u. S. , 35 and the second option is multiparty negotiations. In the japanese, the first option is a little bit stronger than the others, 21 . Direct talks between north korea and the United States and you see at the very bottom, a lot of people think it will not be resolved, particularly the more realistic anyway, you can call it realistic about that. The United States initiating military action against north korea in an attempt to stop its Nuclear Program. Despite the fact that you saw how very few people say it can be solved by military option, when you put the option on the table, you end up getting more people supporting it. It is a minority, only 21 in japan. 33 in the u. S. I think that is quite high when you consider what mike will tell us about the options or what are good options i would love to hear ikes opinion on that. You also find something a little bit more difficult to understand which is that if you breakdown that 33 , the majority of republicans support the military option. 53 . That is very interesting because that is the president s principal constituency. Theyou have 53 who say would support that. The next question, do you think the problem relating to north Koreas Nuclear program will be resolved and if so, when . This is more about optimism or pessimism. It is a way of measuring how people are generally optimistic or generally pessimistic. And lets be clear about that. Look at how pessimistic people are. What you have, a lot of people do not to know. But among those people gave an answer, two thirds of japanese think it will not be resolved and one third in the u. S. Very few people above say its going to be resolved in the next five years so a lot of pessimism. Very few people say north korea has already acquired Nuclear Weapons. People may interpret this in different ways. Even with all of the realism that you see, in a way, a recognition of north Koreas Nuclear reality and at the same time, you find that only 13 of japanese accept recognizing north korea as a nuclear state. 38 of the u. S. Americans are more divided. 37 , 38 , but there is more acceptance. Do you support or oppose japan acquiring Nuclear Weapons if north korea does not give up its own . This is the question of this has been a taboo in japan. You see far more support in the u. S. 33 of americans support that. Only 12 of japanese support it. But one of the things that are a point that mr. Kudo makes no makes in a presentation it looks like more but it looks like it is increasing for people who made prefer to accept that. The same question about whether do you support or oppose south korea acquiring Nuclear Weapons . We have roughly the same in and in japan slightly fewer people, 9 . It is roughly the same result. If north korea does not give up its Nuclear Weapons, do you support the placement of American Nuclear warheads in south korea or japan . Here you have a lot of american supporting that, a slight majority. You still have an opposition in japan. But 21 t surprisingly who support that. There is a difference between democrats and republicans on that issue as with the other issue and i will talk about that on the panel. How do you foresee the likely outcome of the situation on the north Korean Peninsula and the next 10 years . We do not follow it as much here in the u. S. The question is what kind of outcome that is the public perceive for the Korean Peninsula. A few people ranging from one third of americans and 20 of 28 of the japanese say their stability will remain the same roughly. Very few people say north korea and south korea will have reduced their attention and improve their relations. Even fewer say they will be unified. So again, people do not think that relationship is going to profoundly change. They differ on the level of instability really whether it is going to remain the same or it is going to increase in the american side. Think it isle going to get a lot worse. On the american side, people think it is a lot worse and that is striking in comparison to the japanese. In the case of japan, a lot of people said they do not know. How do you think the north korea crisis has affected japans relations with the United States . Again, interesting, because they both have similar perceptions. Over 40 of each public thinks they have been strengthened. Obviously, the people who say they have been weakeend are among the japanese at 4 but it is a bit high for the american side even if it is 20 . You might ask the question, why would even be 20 given that the north korea should be unifying go with japan . When you look at the breakdown by party, you find that democrats are more likely to say than republicans that they have been weakened. It is not just about the relationship improving but is trump dealing with it well. We will see that in a minute because we have specific question about that. What level of military power should the United States maintain in asia . A relevant question, one that we all are grappling with. It is interesting because you have almost half of the American Public, 42 of the japanese public maintaining the same level. In the u. S. , a little bit more. 29 who think we should increase the level 12 in japan. The decrease of support, 13 in japan, 9 in the u. S. But not much more. How do you view the way that President Trump has handled the north Korean Nuclear issue . Now i neednt tell you this but there is a huge partisan divide on this. The independents fall the democrats way on this. You can see here the majority of both the japanese publics and the u. S. Public think the view of the handling is unfavorable. The difference is your very unfavorable or somewhat unfavorable. More intense in the u. S. Than it is in japan, but still a majority of 63 of japanese view the handling of north korea unfavorably. As do a majority of the American Public. Which of the following is closest to your view . North Korea Nuclear arms buildup is mostly driven by insecurity. That is just one obvious about,sis people talk that is mostly driven by ambition and aggression. That it is mostly driven by a desire to be fully recognized. Or it is mostly driven by a desire to maintain the regime. You see that a plurality of both publics think it is about them regime trying to maintain power. But they are divided and a lot of others in the middle a quarter believe it is mostly driven by ambition and aggression and a quarter of the japanese think that it is mostly desire to be fully recognized. This is the question that was only in the japanese market and it really had to do with china. Currently, there is discord between china and the u. S. Japan alliance. In the future, do you think a multilateral security mechanism which includes china is necessary in order to bring a stable, peaceful environment in the region . This is one our partners feel in japan, we didnt ask that question obviously. 58 say it is necessary, only 5 say it is not. Hard to interpret that because that is worth discussion hard to interpret that, but that is worth discussion. Which of the following alliances would be the most effective . This is interesting because we tried to ask the question the same way, understanding the japanese think about it a particular way and we think about a particular way. We put the options there, china, japan, south korea. What is interesting is it seems as though the publics in both places like broader multilateral coalitions. If you look at the one as the most embrace, the u. S. China, japan, south korea, russia that has the biggest support. So clearly, more of an embrace of multilateralism in north korea that seems to be the case in both. Please name to countries that you believe pose the greatest threat to world peace and security. This question is an openended question. We do not give names, we did not give anything at all. People can name whatever country they want. It is very interesting to look at that because this is worth real conversation, especially in a lot of the results. Not surprisingly, both the u. S. And in japan, the publics named north korea as number one. In this environment, they see that as the country that threatens world peace more than any other. However, if you look at where the u. S. Is, it is striking because it is number two for the japanese. 43 of the japanese name it as one of the two countries that is most threatening to world peace and security. Remember, this will not add up asked them to we list two countries, not one. If you look at 13 of the American Public, they say that the United States is the biggest threat to world peace and security and edges china on that in terms of people writing it. It does not mean that they dont not think that china is a threat, it is just what comes to their mind. Because if you had to rate each of these countries separately, they may rate china higher. It tells you about how our public is divided on this and you can see the same thing in japan. One reason why this might be so high in japan despite all of the other things we have seen is the following question that i will end up with. Which is, please name two national or World Leaders you think pose the greatest threat to world peace and security. Again, it is an openended question. We do not try to lead them in any shape or form. In japan, donald trump number one followed by kim jongun with 44 . Even in the u. S. , donald trump is roughly tied with putin at number two following the kim jongun who is rated at number one. And i think if you look at, obviously, the complexity of japanese attitudes will be discussed. We have two superb experts on the panel who will tell us more. But i will Say Something general and not so much about japan, we polls, from other donecularly pew, pew has these global polls of perceptions of the u. S. And the president they are shown very clearly that the perception of the u. S. Is highly correlated with the perception of the president. This could be one of the reasons it is so high on the threat of the perception that the u. S. Is one of the two most threatening states to Global Security as a view of the japanese. With that, i will invite my colleagues to join me on the panel and we will have a discussion. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you, shibley, fascinating. What i would like to do is begin this Panel Discussion by turning first to our japanese colleague who was shibleys partner in the polling. Clarifications, embellishments or quick thoughts may have. Before then, turn to richard bush. This is where your translation devices will come in handy and just in case there is any kind of malfunction, i will try very briefly to summarize what we have heard from kudosahn. Our understanding is that this should work with cspan audiences, that you should hear directly the translation into proceeds. That i think we want to be on channel those of correct, with you here, with your devices. Kudosahn, thank you for coming so far. Thank you for your excellent work on this poll. Is there anything that you want to draw our attention to or additional points beyond the excellent presentation . Well, lets see, we did the poll and we released to japanese media in december. It was shocking data for japanese media. Japaneserage society. Japanese society took it as hot news. That . That is an interesting point. That is because america a lot of americans support north korea and recognizing that north korea as a Nuclear Power. Quite a few number. And similar results can be found amongst japanese experts. A lot of japanese experts of recognizinga north korea as a Nuclear Power. But this is a public poll. Public opinion. General public in america supposing that north korea is a Nuclear Power was a big surprise for the japanese. North korea, who is the neighbor to us, nobody knows what the do. Ers might our allies, the american people, recognizing north korea as a Nuclear Power that could possibly dramatically change the alliancestrategy under in any case, it was shocking society. Japanese a lot of media talked about that. But at the same time, there was a lot of americans also supporting japan acquiring Nuclear Power. That was another big surprise. Although predominant supporters come from republican. But that was a very big surprise. That caused a lot of uncertainty and concerns amongst japanese society. And now, there were new opinions in japan. We could potentially have a serious discussion about whether japan should be acquiring a Nuclear Power. We have done three polling over the last one to two years. About one year ago, it was only 5. 1 of the people who said we be having a Nuclear Power. 12. 3 , only in a matter of a year plus a few months. AntiNuclear Power attitude in japan has shrunk quite a bit. Ofasked same question japanese experts. 20 of japanese experts support the idea of japan acquiring Nuclear Weapons. This is not going to be easy process in japan because this is not really accessible by japanese culture. But now because of the situation happening, there are a concerns, worries among japanese public. So not recognizing north korea as a Nuclear Power and being completely aligned across allies as well as neighbors, i think a lot of japanese think that has to be the strategy. That, i think, is a small insight that we have acquired. That is the most plausible scenario as we move forward. From the important points friend, kudosahn wanted make japanese surprise that the United States would a high percent of americans supporting a japanese option. And maybe there is a decision that is moving gradually and not overwhelmingly. A second important point, assuming your translation worked well. That japanese were a little taken aback that the United States and americans would consider recognizing north korea as a Nuclear Weapon state. As you all know, we do not at present. That is going to be a good question for me to start with richard. Im going to ask them more generally to speak about south korea and south korean attitudes but i hope he can also offer his thoughts as to why americans, or a substantial minority of americans, seem willing to recognize north korea as a state. Weapon is that just a bow to reality . No wayns saying theres to eliminate these things . Or is it somehow favoring a americasnge in positions . Before i give the floor to richard, let me add one more clarifying point which is important, those of you who wonder why we are with focusing on japan and america perspective, to some extent this is our good fortune with those two doing the poll on those two countries. It was not designed to be a comprehensive way to think about korea crisis of Public Opinion across the region. We did not have a big, long project that would have looked at five or six different countries. Please do not interpret this as somehow signaling that these are the only two countries that matter. But clearly they are two of the among the or so with greatest equities in this issue. Richard, i will turn to the greatestry with the equity of all and ask you to koreabout the republic of how you view the north korean issue through their eyes and interpreting their public and politics, and then if you could, why do americans increasingly tolerate the idea of north korea as a Nuclear Weapon state or at least acknowledge that seems to be the reality . Richard mike, thank you for your kind introduction. You may think i am ageless, but i certainly dont feel it. Because im not ageless, im going to answer your last it. Tion first so i remember second, i am pleased that youve given me this opportunity to talk about south korean opinion for reasons that ill talk about. Question of recognizing north korea as a nuclear state, that questionnk is quite ambiguous, or assumes knowledge by the respondents they dont have. The word recognize has a certain legal power when it comes to this issue. As i interpret it, it means that you are recognized as a Nuclear Weapons state for the purposes of the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty. Only five Nuclear Weapon states recognized. There are other states that possess Nuclear Weapons that are not recognized as Nuclear Weapon states. I think that, de facto, they are a state with Nuclear Weapons. That. Know but we are not going to give china and russia and anybody else are going to give north korea the special privileges conferred by the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty. That the current recognized states do. So on south korean attitudes youre absolutely right. South korea does have the greatest equities involved here. As our colleague jonathan pollack likes to say, this is the Korean Peninsula. But mostly importantly there is a wide spread assumption in circles in various countries that if the United States or south korea were to overly aggressive action against north korea, then it to unacceptable retaliation by north Korea Republic of south korea. And the capital city, solo, is just about on the front lines. So south korean views have a presumptive value. Second, Political Trends in south korea are important here as well. We had conservative president s for nine years up until last year. Now we have a progressive president. And his ideas towards north korea, relatively speaking, are more conciliatory and more in favor of engagement than those of his predecessors. So that raises the question whether Public Attitudes have moved as well. Im going to draw on two recent polls. One is by gallup korea in september of last year and the npo. Is by genron the two polls didnt ask the same questions. Ok. Thats first question, how much does north korea pose a threat to peace and security . Particularly after the last test. R people in south korea, 76 say it is a threat of some degree. Only 20 said it is not much of a threat. There are no illusions in south korea about the danger that their country faces from their northern cousins. Second question, how likely do you think that north korea will actually start a war . 37 of South Koreans said it was a possibility to some degree. Only 13 said it was a high possibility. Still, about one third of the public thought it was. And then 58 thought it was low possibility. That was a pretty simplistic question by gallup, but this set of responses strikes me is a of whatgood reflection i understand south korean opinions to be. Genron npo poses this issue in a different and more openended way. It is not whether south korea will start a war but whether military action will occur in response to north Koreas Nuclear weapons development. So it includes the possibility that the United States might take the military action. So 38. 6 of koreans say yes, that military action will occur. 43. 1 of koreans say no. 18. 3 are not sure. For 39 to say yes is not that different from gallup. You will remember that 37 said that there was a possibility that north korea would start a war. Gallup asked whether respondents agreed that the u. S. Should take military action if north korea continues to test its Nuclear Weapons technology. This is only a continuation of testing, it is not used in some way. 33 of the public agreed that the u. S. Should take military action. 59 disagreed, 7 did not know. For 33 to agree is higher than i expected, but that number is suspiciously close to the working estimate of the strength of conservative voters in south korea. Our working model of south korean politics is a 33 are conservative, 33 are progressive, and 33 are swing voters and move in the middle. So on this question, conservatives stand out. Now, gallup asks whether south korea should have its own Nuclear Weapons. 60 agreed. 35 disagreed. This seems high but my recollection is that previous polls have gotten similar results. This does not mean they do not like the u. S. Korean alliance, they like it a lot. But this is the typical response. On the question on how to current situation, npo, koreansgenron andasize dialogue negotiations. Direct talks between the United States and north korea. 47. 9 in favor of some kind of diplomacy. 26. 1 are in favor of sanctions. Ng 14. 4 say china should play a role. R on the longterm future, genron npo asked what the korean would look like 10 years from now. Conflict would intensify. 31. 2 of said northsouth conflict would intensify. 19 said thered the and moved to unification. 20. 1 said it is unpredictable. That strikes me as a pretty realistic distribution of opinions among the public. To sum up, these are my takeaways. South koreans see north korea as a threat. They dont see that war is likely. And they do believe that south korea should go nuclear. South koreans believe the future will look about the same as today or worse. Still, they believe that diplomacy is a good method for addressing the current impasse. In the current context, i think the final opinion gives president moon jaein at least some running room to test north intentions, most immediately regarding the olympic winter games. Tomorrow will be the first meeting of north and south negotiators to talk at least about the norths participation in the winter olympics. Thanks a lot. Thank you so much, richard. Fascinating and richard did a great job of summarizing at the end. I want to get to your involvement in the discussion, but there are two or three other that we want to put on the table briefly. Im going to do one of those which is what might military options be. The polling that we saw from kudosahn recently showed us that there are some interesting divides. Richard just reiterated that. Rok Public Opinion. There is also a question about how well can sanctions that have been so intensified in recent months, starting with a trump administration, Ambassador Haley at the u. N. , but also with the participation of many other countries how well can these bite in 2018 and what kind of policy prospects do we have . I do not think we will touch the last question in our presentations. Bringleave that to you to up if you wish in our discussion. The same thing with the sanctions and economic options. Let me talk through for military four military options. I do not endorse any of them. I think they all wind up being bad ideas. Even on their own relatively they coulds of what directly accomplish. As my colleagues at brookings have emphasized, we have the whole big question of how would kim jongun respond . So let me be emphatic that i am not endorsing these options. None of them presume an allout invasion by the United States presumably with south korea along something i dont think do. H korea would want to none of them are beginning with the option of regime change, iraqlikeow, 2003 overthrow of the existing government. I dont think anybody is that as even a remote possibility. In korea, it is too hard. Had deploibleorea nuclear forces, the estimates that we heard were that such a would cause, at a bare minimum, many hundreds of fatalities on the peninsula. Low estimates at the time and certainly low estimates for today. Because one hiroshima size bomb ofr a city of the density seoul has been estimated by toious exports found 200,000 400,000 prompt fatalities. That is one Nuclear Weapon and north korea may have several dozen. Todont have the ability intercept Nuclear Weapons aimed tokyo. L, nor does tokyo, a little better chance given the distances and some of deployedystems we have in the region that we could bring in. I want underscore, allout war virtually everyone agrees looks very bad. Im going to talk about four more specific, limited attempts at the use of military force. Our ownast efforts in mind would be limited and would way. Would stay that but there is the huge uncertainty as to whether they might. One option that was articulated a dozen years ago by two democratic secretaries of defense, is to shoot down any future icbm test launch on the grounds that doing so would deprive north korea the ability to get data and develop technology of longrange missile strikes. So icbm, intercontinental ballistic missile, this is what they have been trying to develop. Launched three such missiles in 2017, the last in november. We think theyre making a lot of progress. We are not sure if they have the different pieces of this kind of complex technology perfected. Specifically, were not sure if they have reentry vehicles that protect the descending warhead from heat and kinetic during its dissent into the atmosphere before detonation. Thats a hard thing to do well. Were not sure theyve perfected that. Why not prevent them from having the option of having a missile descend by shooting at it while its on the way up or in mid or before its launched . It is an interesting option. Favorite blush, its not crazy. Im not sure its crazy even at second blush. The problems i have with thinking it through, even if we could successfully prevent these them of launches or stop early, you give north korea incentives to then develop other kinds of technology that could more threatening fuel icbms, solid could be even more threatening. For us to see in early launch and harder for us very earlyh in the going. We do not want to steer north korea to accelerating that kind of technology. These kind of test launch, shoot down options could not do the throat seoul and probably not the threat to japan from shorterrange of which there are already many in abundance. The Nuclear Arsenal of north by thiss unaffected option, as well. Not even sure we could be successful in shooting down the icbms mid course. Our technology in these areas is much better at than it has been, but the odds of any oneshot succeeding are 25 to 50 . In that rough range. So we could miss. We could wind up embarrassing ourselves. We could wind up having our interceptor land in a place it wasnt supposed to. Not clear it would be. Uccessful im not sure the secretaries of undere endorsed it current circumstances. But it does not deal with the existing threat and it may not prevent the future icbm threat from taking on a different form. That is the first option. There are also Nuclear Facilities that north korea is developing to expand its Nuclear Arsenal. As you know, it has a working Research Reactor that makes plutonium, one of the key potential ingredients in a nuclear bomb. It also has the famous uranium enrichment facility that they were not supposed to have. They told secretary kelly in 2002 that they had been doing this surreptitiously. Enrichedink they have plutonium as a way to fuel their devices. We could in theory try to deal with that or reduce that. The problem is, you cannot attack the existing Research Reactor because you are going to a mini chernobyl if you do. You would spew radioactivity across a large swath. Thats a viable option. We could destroy that reactor. But it has been operational for so long that it will be a chernobyl or fukushima if it happens. We could try to destroy work on additional reactors the way the israelis did in 2001 and reactor in 2007. If that were the only potential capability the North Koreans had to build a bomb material, the case would be stronger. The problem is if you do that today with the reactor there believed to be trying to complete, you are not going to affect the existing Research Reactor. If you go after the uranium enrichment facilities, the way muchre thinking about in of the discussion of iran up until the Iran Nuclear Deal three years ago, if you go after uranium enrichment, theres a little less concern about radio existingillage from sites, but we dont know about additional sites the north andans may have above location. Established if we go after their nuclear capability, the Nuclear Production capability, we are maybe getting at half the problem of a future buildup and doing nothing at all about what they own already. Knowse we dont think we where the Nuclear Weapons that are already built might be today. You are slowing the scale and pace at which their future reactor and centrifuge capabilities could expand their arsenal. That has some limited tactical appeal. But the risks are enormous and youre not eliminating the preventingany way or its future growth. The third option you might consider, not going after the weapons of mass destruction directly necessarily but blockading north korean trade as a supplement to the u. N. Gettions so they cant around the sanctions by cheating or working with any companies or countries that might be willing to break the sanctions. And you can use the u. S. And south korean navy to try to stop ports. At north korean it does have potential ability to further heighten the effect of sanctions. I think theres no doubt about that if we were to do this. But it is also an act of war under International Law. The North Koreans already say the sanctions are an act of war. But this, everybody would agree in some sense, is an act of war. It is a tool that countries do not employ often. North korea might shoot back at our navy or at other assets, but beyond, that the main concern i have about this option, it doesnt prevent them trade across china, the land border, and it doesnt invent them flying hightechnology equipment if for their need missile program. It runs a risk of escalation. The last option i will mention is direct assassination of kim jongun. Feel like iouldnt was being very polite bringing of an option here if it werent already in the discussion. We know from reports last fall, there are elements of existing combined forces command plans that would go after military control of which kim jongun is the top rung in the ladder. Therefore, one would ask, why do we not just tried to kill him . The way we tried on first day of of 2003, iraqi freedom to essentially assassinate or hussein, as youll recall, the opening day, we thought we knew where he was. We launched a big attack at a farm complex south of baghdad and turns out he wasnt there. We caught him a few months later, but the actual bombing attempt did no good. There is always a chance that we could figure out where kim jong un was on a given day and kill him. We could try to argue that this was justifiable under International Law given his behavior and noncompliance with various International Obligation and hope there was no fallout or bounceback against our own leaders. But above and beyond that, the more compelling counter argument is that we have no idea how his military command would react if that happened. And very little reason to think they are going to accept a peaceful reunification or whatever kind of terms we are offering and go into exile in terms weve offered. Chances are, many are most would create an alternative leadership and fight. That would probably be seen as an opening act of war. In that particular option, the escalationrth korean are particularly high. Sorry to go in to such detail on that but i want to get on the table and before we go to you i want to run down the panel. Richard may want to comment on what i just said and i will go to our two other speakers for any further comments they want to briefly make, then to your questions. Richard i think you stated it very well. I want to hear the questions of the audience. Thank you. Kudosahn, anything else at this point . Translator we have been doing opinion poll so many times in past. Theid it together with chinese counterpart as well as many countries. Greatn poll gives us insight. One of the message we can take from this opinion poll is that a americans and japanese believe status quo is not going give us a solution to the korea. In north japan, u. S. , other neighboring countries maybe needing to come together to have strategy to objective together. Theres an air of suspicion that maybe not really aligned to each other. North korea recognizing north korea may not be possible under npt, but they do already have the Nuclear Weapons and they are trying to have their own missile so they can shoot in japans location. In different locations in the world. What we need to have is to have as a solution is to have effective oversight, bringing out more effective control to korea. Lear in the north otherwise, our neighbors will feel secured. But not too many people have started to think about the potential of having installed oversight. Thatg, crossing finger Nuclear Program will be stopped. But that uncertainty is driving opinion poll. There is a big if in the opinion poll result today, though. Were feeling insecure because of the status quo. Doesnt give quo comfort to our people, what are be new solutions we should discussing about . By the way, number two answer is chinesea involvement. Now, china should not only step up for economic sanctions. I think there could be a potential military option by chinese, too. Weve done opinion poll with china last year. China had just changed the internal law. Almost all the overseas polling takings are banned from polls, but we are given access china. Ing in in last years poll results, we asked a question about, do you think north korea is a threat . Only 13 of chinese thought north korea was a threat. 25 of chinese thought that south korea was a threat. But chinese experts are different. Chinese experts think that north Korea Nuclear is a threat. Chinese opinions are being controlled by central government, but experts exposed to the reality, and they are aware of how risky north Korea Nuclear is. Now, i think this discussion needs to be discussed together us as well as with china. We should start discussing about specific scenarios once we are successful for freezing their Nuclear Program. Maybe america should take leadership in that. Is america willing to take leadership in that . I think thats a very important question. If america can take leadership in this multilateral discussion, i think the sense of uncertainty that worries that people are feeling could dramatically change. So nonnuclear option in Korean Peninsula is something we should be discussing, inviting many different countries. Thanks. From my point of view, to give my thoughts on your presentation, which i thought was extremely comprehensive in terms of putting out what people are thinking about in terms of options, a military option is unthinkable. Its not just risky, its unthinkable. I think the public actually seems to think that, as well. When you ask them, what would it resolve . Whether military action would resolve the korean issue, very few people agree that it would. Like 11 . In japan is even fewer. There is agreement that it would not happen. In my opinion, the reason you slightly higher numbers supporting military action when you ask in the u. S. , 33 percent, it is basically because we are split on everything. You are either protrump or against trump. Thatome of the options when people are saying this, theyre just identity politics. Trump, im going against trump. That is part of the problem in polling. Ur i want to Say Something that is broader about the global options here. My colleague kudo said that the u. S. Should take leadership in multilateral negotiations. You can see that the American Public andjapanese south korean public prefer talks. Teral they think thats the avenue to proceed. But heres the problem. In order to take leadership, people have to trust you. You have to have a moral position to lead. People have to think that youre threat. When they think youre a bigger president ofhe north korea, when they think that the president of the u. S. Worldreater threat to peace than the leader of north hard tots very persuade people to join you on whatever option you want to do, whether its going to be additional sanctions, whether its going to be a military is unthinkable but if somebody might go there because some of the republican openc seems to be somewhat to the idea, whos going to join you in the world when youre that. If you are going to lead in a multilateral way, for what agenda would they even trust you to lead if you dont have the agenda. Clearly, we have the crisis in the way we are projecting ourselves in the world. That even is seen in places like japan, which on this issue clear ally, and it is. But we see that and the attitudes. Not to mention within our own country. We are in such a crisis internally, divided like we have never been, i think in our history. Some of the polling weve done on the divide, it is extraordinary, the difference between republicans and 80 . Rats is 80 or over it is like we are two different countries. Not like one country. How is any leader going to morally mobilize us to do the right thing whatever that let aloneg is bring all these people around the world when were isolated and seem not to be trusted, even worse, threat. Be a that is the challenge we face in reality. Lets go to you. I would like to take three questions at a time. Please wait for a microphone and identify yourself. Please limit yourself to one question per person and you can direct the question to a specific individual or to the whole panel. Start right here please. [indiscernible] ive done opinion polling all my life and it can be quite tricky. I am interested, if you could have one wildcard question at the end of the survey, what have biasedldnt all the other questions, what . Ight you have added for example, one asked the question if trillions of dollars is going to be spent focused around north korea, should it be on Nuclear Conflict or on developing people . Something like that that will analyze all the other results cemented by that. It was quite difficult to know who was experts in terms of answering a lot of those questions. Thanks. Will go over here to the woman in the third row. Hi, i am a freelance journalist. I would like to ask the panelists, what do you think motivates kim jongun in the talks that should start tomorrow . How optimistic are you that this could lead to multilateral talks . Excellent. We will have one more in the second row. Bill, retired Foreign Service usaid. , your comment regarding control and oversight begs the question with regard to north korea selling off their nucleus to terrorist organizations, terrorist cells nukes. It seems like a hard question to answer, but has that been thought of and are their ideas on how to mitigate the problem . Great. I suggest, why dont that shibley and kudosahn, that on polling. And then richard will take what kim jongun might be thinking, and we can all wait and on the final question about the broader risks. If you have something you want to add, feel free. I know it is a rhetorical question, but my own sense of where the public is the justc probably would say, in general, people dont want war. Still antiwar. The postiraq war sentiment still holds and they do not wars are solving the problems. The question is whether they want to spend american money to develop other countries. The public is really divided on this and along partisan lines. Ii think in theory, theyre open to it. But i can see how theyre opposed to foreign aid and they to getie it its hard a grip on that. I want to get to the second question about what the public in principle says. One of the big things that we tried to get at in the poll is to see what people think is motivating the north korea. Is it insecurity . Is it aggression . Protection . And is insecurity and regime samection one in the thing . You combine them together, a lot of people think that. Think the regime is trying stay in power. I think that is a good interpretation because if that is one of the big motives, insecurity, given flearks people, then there are who say this is an opportunity because they are trying once the successful icbm tests, they now think they actually have, in effect, established deterrence against the u. S. And theyve always said, when to start negotiations that. The question is is if the negotiation with south korea is an attempt to influence south korean Public Opinion away from the u. S. Or whether it is a genuine conversation, i would love to hear both of our panelists on this. Richard . Richard with respect to the talks that will begin tomorrow, hours. T 12 the defined scope of the talks is to talk about the winter games. Kim jongun has an interest in his athletes participating in the games. For them to be excluded is a kind of humiliation. So i expect that some sort of formula will be found for north athletes to participate, perhaps under a single flag. The question that is raised extended talks then be to go into other issues . I think there will be an attempt, but my guess is it will not get very far. Because each side has very different demands and because each side has very expectations of the other. We will find that north korea sets out a very tough agenda concerning the future of interkorean relations. It will be something the president cannot accept. Response toed, in shibleys question, what we see in the polling of south korea is hand theyre happy for these talks to occur. But the views as of now concerning north korea are quite negative and quite fearful. I think president moon does not have too much running room to make big concessions. Finally, one might ask of the North Koreans, do they really want to have talks on big issues including their Nuclear Program . They are moving closer and closer to their goal of being able to hit the continental United States with a Nuclear Weapon. They probably do not want to be stopped in the middle of that. Before theyve gotten to what they really want. Thanks. Let me use the moment to pivot to your question but also to make an advertisement for colleagues at brookings who have thoughts these questions. To look at our website. Were blessed to have remarkable on korea, including our korea chair who spent many years communityelligence trying to understand what motivates kim jong un. The question we have had to debate internally, what are his ultimate goals, why does he want ability to hit the United States with a Nuclear Weapon . Of us agree he does. The question is, is he an ambitious, assertive, leader who really envisions the reunification of the peninsula some day and really wants to split the u. S. South Korean Alliance so that south korea is coerced into submission. These kinds of theories are sometimes discussed other trying to avoid the mistakes that muammar qaddafi and the taliban all made hostile being in a relationship with the United States and not having your own Nuclear Weapons and it really is regime protection. I am not going to try to speak for any consensus among the brookings scholars, but we all agree that we do not really know. People may weigh one possibility more than another and if my weigh in, shes to can catch my eye and correct the record. But i would encourage people to look at that. Einhorn and bob jonathan pollack, whose book is sober us all to the fact that the north korean not be will probably easily eliminated any time soon if ever. That is a way of answering your question indirectly at least which is to say whether north korea would do something as potentially self destructive as to sell Nuclear Weapons abroad, say. Hard to they have already sold some nuclear materials. Would they threaten to sell a weapon if they feel u. S. Sanctions have so squeezed their the resthat they want of us to believe they have no other choice to keep their afloat. I could see them making that threat. These are the kind of uncertainties we have about future north korean behavior and it is pretty hard to be precise that. Re than see if mr. Kudo has a comment to add on that. Thank you. No comment . Ok. Lets go to a second round of questions here. Lets start with mack in the front row. Gentleman go to the in the red scarf in the fourth next tothe woman in the the last row. I believe richard raised the question about the v. A. And the question of accepting north power. S a nuclear i wonder if the question had way that it in a might be confused with nonproliferation acceptance or reluctant acquiescence. I wonder if the answer would have more support if it was phrased as reluctant acquiescence because we lacked other options. Thank you. My name is peter. Given the options you described, could say the long for action to diplomacy, negotiation. Military action is been considered horrific but given our governments behavior with with t. P. P. , the Paris Climate Accord and even the iran nuclear have a lot of credibility is my assessment. Where does that leave us . Third question. Diane perlman, george mason analysis andnflict resolution. In kim jonguns famous sense about the button, i havent heard anyone Pay Attention to the second half of the sentence which is that he has a button and he will not use threatened. s i think its pretty clear he ands the need to deter us people are more dangerous when afraid and threatened and backed corner. What about tension reduction and freeze for and freeze, i think they have a much success. Obability of how should we begin . Richard . Do you want to begin this round . Mack, i wish they had asked the question that way. It would be more useful when thinking about policy responses. Your. Cook, i agree with that military option is horrific. I agree that we are hurting ourselves by these statements of the president. I think that underneath the rhetoric, there is a policy that is emerging. And that is containment and deterrence to include sanctions. Sanctions do not have an impact right away. They have to be in effect for a longish period of time, they have to be applied in a comprehensive way. Reallyteresting that the tough sanction are only now beginning to take effect. China is only now beginning to add its weight to a comprehensive sanctions campaign whether this will change koreas policies, i dont know. This seems to be the most likely approach to achieving some sort of goal that has a Broad International support. I did not quite hear the question in the back. I think the problem with any is not negotiations because the two sides dont or sort ofeach other dont have an opportunity to get to a compromise. But at this point they have very goals. Nt declared north korea says we are going to be a nuclear state, get over it. No country in the international community, particularly any are most affected and part of the sixparty talks, goal. Lling to accept that ours remains at denuclearization. Until one side or the other backs down, it doesnt its that there would be an opportunity to find some ground. Kudosahn . Now, in the United States, it is a very cold country. I find out. But i am feeling more comfortable because i am away from north korea now. And i think i am speaking from one side and you are speaking from the other side because distance differences from north korea. North korea is having Nuclear Power already. If military option is not think the only thing is to raise the deterrence, containment. I agree with that. For japan to have better deterrence, maybe japan needs to American Nuclear. Maybe that needs to be discussed across japanese society. If they engaged the discussion, other neighbors will start the discussion of bringing nuclear in our state. Somebody talked about the nuclear spillover to terrorists organizations, but that may add on top of that, there are a lot of layers of complexity associated with that. So if we recognize north korea as a Nuclear Power, that could potentially damage the n. T. T. As well as the Security Framework on. Ently we are relying now, again, we are having china androgram with south korea. We invited the american friends last year. In our dialogue, we wanted to objectives about security of our region. With south korea and japan, they cant quite a agree about nonnuclear in north korea, but the americans do not think that according to the poll. Asked about 10 people, 60 said nuclear. But 40 is supportive about korea sayg north nuclear state. As an ally, that attitude for america was troublesome for many japanese perspectives. Because there is one state, korea, in asia, which owns weapons. If thise see them and continues, Security Strategy in changed. To be we do not want to change it. Because we are victim of nuclear, we are very allergic to having Nuclear Weapons or allowing other countries Nuclear Weapons in our land, so is the only legitimate option for many japanese people. There are only two options to do that. One is to strengthen economic sanctions so we can have more diplomatic talks, or military option to some degree, degree might be. Of course, peaceful solution is best. We want to do it peacefully. How can we raise pressure and give the motivation to north orea by recognizing them extend economic development. But having them stop or freeze or completely abandon nuclear in north korea is the only viable for us. And i Hope International community agrees. But this is the attitude of japan, if i may say. With macksart question. Richard is right about this ambiguous. Hat it is interesting that if you ask the same question to experts, you are probably going to get the same answer even if they know more. What you find in the results is exactly what you might expect the experts to say. Which is that most expect that you will not change the reality, on the ground, there are Nuclear Weapons. But most do not want a formal recognition. They may not know the meaning of that is, they may not know what entails for nonproliferation. But they have a sense that this question means you are asking as formal recognition and mr. Kudo said, in japan, there is huge reluctance to accept formally. Even if there is acquiescence. Or acceptance. There is Something Interesting learn from it. On insecurity, richard is right on saying that there are different names. Obviously thats the case. The question is what is the starting a negotiation even with different names . At some point you are going to have to start some negotiation. The reality is even if you do not think that the principal motivator for north korea is insecurity, no one would deny that part of it is insecurity given their history for the people or for the insecurity of the regime. The question is whether if you give them some added sense of security, whether that will make them more open to negotiation. Not to give up their Nuclear Weapons necessarily, but to some negotiations. When you go into elton fryes hegestion, in an article wrote a few weeks ago, saying lets place 50,000 troops on soil to assure them wed never attack north korea, thats innovative thinking. We can agree or disagree with it. In principle, those are the kinds of things and ideas that we need to think about. With the question of our credibility and the possibility of war, despite all that we have said, despite what mike said, all the different options, there is no good military option here. Moreof us feel even strongly than that for a variety mention reasons, not to moral ones. Not to mention consequences for the neighbors of south korea and japanese and everyone else. That, i dontl of have the confidence to say that it. Government wouldnt do and that is the scariest part of all. Because with the fact that you have options, you can assess the risks. You start a conversation about the risks. And if you are in the white house and you want to do this, and maybe some of you have a theory about how our president makes his decisions. I dont. Ill leave that aside. The fact that you have 53 of the u. S. Licans in supporting a military option, even without the president really putting it on the table, me that its not unthinkable. So we all have to not be satisfied with the fact that we are analytically we do not think it is possible or should not be possible. It should be unthinkable. That Public Opinion does not think that it is going to solve the problem, and it wont, all theseere are other things that we have to worry about and thats something that i do lose sleep at night over. Richard wanted to add a point and im going to add one, too. Round. ll have a final on february 29, 2012, the United States and north korea came to an agreement. North korea would suspend Nuclear Missile tests and we would provide food aid. A kind of freeze for freeze. The hope on the United States side was that this could progress to something else. Three weeks, north korea reneged on the agreement. That, among other things, raises the questions about the credibility of their commitments. I was going to talk about something else, i agree with richard. Bob and i have written about a freeze for freeze construct but i agree that they had to assume the North Koreans are going to try to cheat. The idea that bob and i have been trying to develop is that how could we get the North Koreans to freeze not just Nuclear Missile testing but Nuclear Production . There must be some way to get a sense of all of their Nuclear Production capabilities which will be hard. We have to not give them too much for the deal. We should not formally recognize them as a Nuclear Weapon states and i believe most of the u. S. Sanctions would have to stay in place even with that kind of deal. We could tolerate some more chinese and russian trade at that juncture and let up on some of the pressure to tighten the u. S. Sanctions. The one thing the United States could give in addition to some food aid and other humanitarian gesture of that type would be some kind of cap on the size of future military exercises with a clear emphasis, however, that this is not meant to tolerate the reduction or readiness of the combined forces in korea. We have to substitute a big one with a few smaller ones. We have to talk with colonel tim who was the head of our brigade and korea last year and many other military officers to figure out how we could do this. If they are not comfortable with the proposal, we would have to walk away from it. We could cap the size of exercises that is a relatively high number, 15000 or 20,000. That is the kind of freeze for freeze that we have been talking about. Lets do one last round and i would like to favor people folks from the region. I have not seen too many japanese or korean hands, but i want to give first preference if there are any. Then i will open it up more generally. We will start with the woman standing in the back and then the gentleman standing in the back and then we will come in the third row and we will wrap up. Thank you, this alecia. With in the last month, we have seen russia align its assessment of the icbm capabilities they have aspects of icbm. They have reached aspects of icbm capabilities. There is summit meeting in the middle here. One of the diplomatic alternatives that i did not see discussed here was a partial test ban treaty. I wanted your thoughts to u. S. Russia fixed party talks getting north korea to limit further testing to belowground that is not beyond the pale of thought considering the future of north Koreas Nuclear testing. Thank you. Thank you. Microphone over here please. Thank you, nonproliferation bureau. One thing that did not come up was the u. S. Public opinion and it seemed that 33 that did not have an opinion of did not seem to know or did not seem to know. I was curious that they did not seem to have a Comfort Level with the response. Is that because you talk to them during dinner, is that because people despite it being in the news, do not have an opinion . What are your opinions on that on the high level of nonresponse . On the Nuclear Testing idea, i was just thinking north korea participators, just an they areng thought, the only country with Nuclear Weapons who signed this recent whateveran treaty, for that is worth. My question is about russia. I wonder if any of the panelists could discuss that more. Quickly, it is not the right impression on the u. S. Side. Very few do not know except on one or two questions that the rest of them were very low. The rest of those questions for detailed and they do not know. We do not usually get a lot of do not knows. Any last word of those three questions . You mentioned about a lot of japanese response i dont know. Very many japanese people say i dont know. In this last opinion poll, the question is with those who , about 25 of americans say they do not know military options. I think this can sway in a big way depending on how new developments will take place. Once opinion gets swayed one way, that can have a huge impact to the political assets, and that can become uncontrollable. Before a big crisis happens, i countries need to be more engaged with each other and communicating with each other. What can japan do . Japan can only do a few things. We can maybe make a commitment for future assistance to the butlopments of north korea, another thing that japan can contribute his development exercise on this north korean issue. Without north korean issues being resolved, there is no peaceful framework in that region. There, u. S. Is there, there is no peaceful communication channel. Im giving us an opportunity. China, south korea, japan, the u. S. , maybe the four of us should get together about a new peaceful institution that can possibly work in the region. Japanese media is busy talking andt mr. Trumps tweets, attitudes. That is the reason why a lot of japanese people are saying i dont know as my answer. Seriously now have to face solution of discussions about this problem. I think the starting point has to be identifying a Common Objective across the two countries, as well as our neighboring countries. This event has taught me a lot of things. There are a lot of different perspectives from americans that are different from japan. I am not criticizing that. I think more japanese people need to recognize american opinions so that we can have more productive discussions across japan and america about new order in our region. Case, for the region to be peaceful, the north korean issue has to be resolved. That is the perspective of japan i wanted to emphasize. On the question of russia, russias opinion on the outlook has always been good. I will say that there has been some concern in the last year the russia may undercut tougher and tougher sanctions that are being imposed and maybe come in behind the chinese. There has been some expert analysis that suggests that the really remarkable progress that north korea has made in the last two years on rockets or missiles was a result of new help that they received from the russian enterprise that produces rockets. No information on who ordered the company to do that, but that is concerning because it has made a bad situation much worse. We spend a lot of time arguing with ourselves about what is the right formula for getting north korea to the table and what is the formula for getting to yes. Response withn secretary james baker said he was talkingen about negotiations with nicaragua when we had a similar sort of problem. It was simple. The white house telephone number. If north korea hassan ideas, they know who to call. I will add one brief concluding word. Concerns. S the poll did a nice job of highlighting how much japanese share concerns. I am not here to try to suggest that i am completely at ease with the decisionmaking style of our commander in chief, but i am confident of one thing. Advicelity of the President Trump will get will be excellent. Mattises of the world, the sentiment have seen too much war in their lives to be in any way delusional. Some of them are on record and saying that a war with north korea would be substantially worse than anything we are seeing in the middle east. I do not know what decisions that will produce, and i wish the public articulation of the discussion and of the options were of a somewhat different tone and character, especially from the man at the top. I have known a lot of his team for a long time, and it is a rocksolid team in questions of war and peace. The level of options, i am confident will be very good. I hope that is something that we can finish with a feeling of reassurance about. I want to thank the panel for being here. Them. Join me in thanking [applause] and now live to london for british prime ministers question time. The house of commons is in session each weekend we bring