Transcripts For CSPAN2 US Senate 20160114

Discussion. Theres going theres going to be pressure from the bottom up. People cannot live under those conditions. The chinese know this, the chinese know and there are real worries about the chinese and about what that instability will lead to in terms of them. So that that leads me to my third point, that is, when we talk about china, its not getting china involved, china is very involved with the consequences. It may have its own agenda about what it wants to do this. The question is, besides pressure on china, and we have heard a lot what are the ways of partnership with china lacks what do you see as opportunities at this moment to be dealing with . Thank you very much. Very insightful thoughts and questions. If there is no other Opening Statements im going to move to the panel first of all introducing three great experts on this issue. First is the Senior Adviser and the chair of the center for study jack and International Studies. Its good to see you again. A the Senior Research fellow for northeast asia at the Heritage Foundation and is bonnie whos the adviser for the project of strategic and International Studies on behalf of all of you here today and thank you for making the time available. First big representative sherman and members of the committee is in honor to speak with you today about a difficult topic and that is north korea. Un ginned both urgency and i think theres a great deal of urgency. There are elements of determinants in crisis and stability that the drive from the Nuclear Weapons status that database but i dont think they fully comprehend and it can also be the case that the north Korean Leader used Nuclear Weapons as Nuclear Weapons rather than strategic element of deterrence valuable only in their nonuse. So, the urgency is that the result could be a disaster at the cost of tens of thousands of lives at which point the world is going to wonder why that United States did nothing to stop this before it was too late. So what have we done in their own words of strategic patients that had two objectives. First was to break the cycle of provocation for negotiation that has a flaw in the Administration Policies and second, the concept was this idea of pressure that would eventually cause them to feel compelled and come back to negotiations genuinely willing to cut a deal. When this didnt work the administration tried to reach out and engage but all these offers have been spurred by the regime so we are in the worst of all worlds right now. There is no diplomacy, theres more tests, the growing program, the new cycle of provocation. Its the Nuclear Tests three of them during the Obama Administration, two of them before the state of the union speech. At the rate we are going this is going to be sent to the next administration and be an exponentially worse problem. So they have to focus on what bob and i described in the times last week as asymmetric Pressure Points. In my experience being involved in the negotiations in the Previous Administration there were only two times i felt like they were truly caught off guard, uncertain of how to respond. The first of these was in september of 2005 when the Treasury Department took actions that led to the freezing of north korean assets and into the bank in china. Second was in february of 2014 in the aftermath of the United Nations commission of inquiry report of which the major recommendation was the referral of the leadership for the crimes against humanity. These were the only two times i felt the North Koreans were frazzled and i think the new strategy has to build on these Pressure Points. Let me highlight a couple of these. First is the sanctions and i know bruce will talk about these as well as the chairman said it is a policy that its the most sanctioned in the world and the chairman cited the statistics for how the sanctioning is higher than that against north korea so there is probably more space to operate their. Secondary sanctioning should also be given positive consideration. I know this has been talked about in the path to become policy circles and this will complicate relationships with china, the European Union, south america and africa. But its also certain many of these entities will comply given the choice of dealing with north korea or losing access to the u. S. Financial system. We should also give consideration to the chairman said putting north korea back on the statesponsored terrorism list. I know there will be lawyers who will dispute the criteria for putting north korea back on the list in private money urge the particular attention be given to the cyber capabilities. We did research at csi shows the activities are instigated by the same agencies within the north korean government that have been responsible in the past for her respects. Human rihts is to complement sanctions as part of the strategy. One of the targets would be north korean slave labor. Theres over 50,000 workers in africa, the middle east coming europe, russia and china operating in subhuman conditions that are being paid nothing. The revenues are going back to the government. There are different estimates between 250 million to over 2 billion of the currency. So this should be targeted. Another useful Pressure Point is the case on Industrial Complex. This project provides 90 million in hard currency to the authority with little wage is actually going back to the workers. The south korean government would be opposed to Something Like this because even conservative governments have grown attached to the case on the Industrial Complex that ethical times call for difficult measures. Last, on information coming north korea is proving to be hypersensitive and in its criticisms. With renewal of the human rights act, i entirely agree with the chairman on the idea of trying to increase funding and basically think about new ways of bringing in information to the country. As some of the work that weve done with the Bush Institute has shown the United States and south korea can come up with a comprehensive strategy for breaking down information barriers because in the end, we need to improve the condition of the people of north korea. Thank you very much. Thank you mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and other members of the panel. It is an honor to be asked to appear before you on such an important issue to the national security. National security. The recent nuclear test is again triggered widespread calls to do something tough on north korea, but weve been here many times before and each Time Administration claims of tough action were taken at face value, pledges to be even tougher the next time were issued in the and interest was eventually diverted elsewhere. More effective action was also hindered by several widely accepted myths about the sanctions. The first is that sanctions cant affect an isolated country like north korea. It targeted Financial Measures which are a Law Enforcement mechanism are directed against specific entities that violate u. S. Laws even the most isolated regime, criminal organization or terrorist group is tied into the Global Financial order. The vast majority of all is International Financial transactions including those of north korea are denominated in dollars which means they must go through a u. S. Treasury department regulated bank in the United States. That gives the United States tremendous power and leverage to freeze and seize assets to impose fines such as a 9 billiondollar fine imposed on a french bank for improper Financial Transactions with cuba, iran and sudan and to deny access to the u. S. Financial system. As you already pointed out mr. Chairman the second myth is that north korea is the most heavily sanctioned country in the world. President obama claims its president obama claims its the most isolated cover most sanctions on earth. Thats simply not true. The u. S. , European Union and un and pose far more pervasive and compelling measures against iran and north korea. Also the United States has targeted far fewer entities than those of the balkans, burma, cuba, iran and zimbabwe. They sanctioned more than twice as many zimbabwe entities than north korean entities. We also designated the primary Money Laundering concerns but not north korea which is counterfeiting the currency. The u. S. Sanctioned officials from burma, the congo, iran, sudan and zimbabwe for Human Rights Violations and sanctioned by name the president s of belarus and zimbabwe will but not get sanctioned a single north korean entity for Human Rights Violations merely two years after the Un Commission of report concluded that regime was conducting such an egregious Human Rights Violations as to constitute crimes against humanity. The u. S. Has also frozen the assets of the iranian and syrian but not north korean officials and entities for censorship. The list goes on and on and i concluded other examples in my testimony. Third, theres nothing more than that u. S. Can impose on north korea. After he left office, the former assistant secretary of state Kurt Campbell commented it would be possible for us to put more financial pressure on north korea. We can make life much more difficult through financial sanctions on north korea and he also pointed out he was surprised when he was in government to find out that there were about ten times as many sanctions on burma as north korea. President obama can the secretary of state and other officials made similar statements indicating there are other measures that u. S. Could impose that hasnt. Forth is that the sanctions dont work. As already pointed out, tough measures were effective when applied. In 2002 that u. S. Designated the bank in asia as a moneylaundering concern for facilitating the north korean illicit activities. As a result of a belatedly enforce its laws as well as the meetings by the officials throughout asia. Two dozen Financial Institutions voluntarily cut back or terminated the business with north korea and the negotiator admitted to a senior white house official he finally found a way to hurt us. Instead what the u. S. Should be giving his implement in the model against north korea just a Strong International measure induced back to the negotiating table or robust measures are needed to leverage north korea. While implementing new sanctions measures are fully implementing and enforcing the already existing farreaching measures is also critical. The u. S. Has the tools we just lack the resolve to fully use them. For years the Obama Administration has been hitting the snooze bar on sanctions and pursued holding some sanctions that need to be rolled out after ruled out after the next north korea in violation or provocation. The u. S. Instead needs to sharpen the choices by raising the risk and the cost for those violating the laws in the un resolutions not only north north korea but those that facilitate its actions. In my written testimony i provided a lengthy list of specific recommendations for the u. S. And south korean actions that should be implemented against north korea. Neither sanctions nor diplomacy alone as a panacea. Both are infantile and along with fully funding the u. S. Defense requirements should be mutually reinforcing elements of the comprehensive integrated strategy. I will conclude my presentation with the same question i posed two years ago. As the united United States hesitated to impose the same legal measures against north korea that it has already used against other countries for far less egregious violations of u. S. And international law. Thank you for the privilege of appearing before you. Ranking member sherman and distinguished mentors of the subcommittee im honored to have the opportunity to testify today on this very important issue. As so many of you have already pointed out, cooperation from china the benefactor is essential to achieving a nuclear free peninsula. The biggest trading partner accounts for 90 of the global trade, provides at least 70 of north koreas crude Oil Requirements and 45 of its food and invests accounts for almost 95 of the direct investment of north korea. The u. S. Should not expect beijing to completely abandon its ally and forge a common strategy with washington to squeeze north korea until it gives up its Nuclear Weapons or collapses but it may be possible to strictly comply with its existing International Commitments to further tighten and reduce its support or make continued support contingent on specific actions by pyongyang to return to its nuclearization. To elicit greater cooperation, the u. S. Must attach high priority to north korea on the china agenda especially in the summit meetings between the president s. The u. S. And chinese leaders. Cooperation should be identified as a witness testify proposition that the United States and china can Work Together where their interests overlap and the u. S. Should then take the following steps. First of the u. S. Should call off china for its out of china for its failure to enforce existing sanctions. North korea has deep networks with Chinese Companies and uses these relationships to procure prohibited items from all over the world routing them through china before onward shipments to north korea. Designated entities continue to do business with Chinese Companies and visit chinese ports. North koreans are reportedly still able to conduct banking transactions in the small banks operating in northeast china along the border. China does not enforce the ban on luxury goods. Second they should agree to the designation of more north korean individuals and entities in the new Un Security Council resolution. Third they should encourage them to use its leverage over north korea in a targeted way to pressure for change and its behavior. China could refuse to engage in new economic projects with north korea until the government returns to negotiations in good faith. Beijing could reduce the flow of Chinese Tourists to north korea which has become a significant source of foreign exchange. Forth the United States should encourage china to leverage its assistance to north korea to influence its behavior. So to deter the longrange missile launches and Nuclear Tests china could agree to warn pyongyang the future provocations would be followed by a cutback in chinese aid. And it could also insist that a return to its commitments under the Six Party Talks over this substantial reductions and deliveries of crude oil in and the cursing, diesel and gasoline. And they should suppress china to not abstract discussions and un bodies on human rights abuses in north korea and the sensitivity to this issue. Securing the cooperation from china to increase pressure on north korea may be more feasible than in the past. Its a decisive and bold leader who has a clear vision of what is needed what he calls the chinese drained the great rejuvenation of the nation and undersea the leadership of china has embarked on an effort to end the special relationship in the past between beijing and pyongyang and replace it with a normal state to state relationship. Why would you have the most powerful leader they have sufficient clout to overrule opposition from the constituencies of china that would persist persist and a tougher stance stance toward north korea especially the party in the and the military. Beijing is not prepared to assume the sole sponsor of the addressing the Nuclear Threat that china might be willing to do more along the lines that i have outlined if it believes that the u. S. Has an effective strategy thats prioritizing the goal of creating a non nuclear peninsula and doesnt seek to use the peninsula to harm chinese interests. What does china want, a balance of power that is favorable to chinese interests and certainly doesnt threaten the chinese interest. They do not adamantly opposed the unification but the burdens and dangers of the status quo today are less risky for china than the uncertainty they may bring for the chinese interest, and i look forward to the discussion. Thank you again. Thank you for making the time to be here today. It is kind of unnerving when seth rogan gets more than our policies do. He hit a nerve when he do that movie out along more than any of the blustering that has been coming out of washington, d. C. Its been a conundrum as was pointed out by my colleague that isnt new and isnt an issue be solved at one time and has never been resolved and every time ive spoken with any expert about getting north korea to start living with accepted International Norms especially when it comes to the proliferation every one of those conversations always involves china because they are the 800pound gorilla when it comes to dealing with north korea because of that dependence for food and energy. And you have made some very astute observations on what china could do. How in the data properly to get it done better than a lot of things talked about. Maybe targeted sanctions that involve the chinese banks that fund north korea. Maybe that is something that we could talk about. I spoke about that in a bipartisan way. Mr. Klinger, you said that in your submitted speech, your written speech youre going to be talking about the sanctions that may be coded and should be on the table. I would like us to look at entertaining those. I think the bill passed yesterday on the house floor was a good move. I think it moves the ball off the field but theres more to be done. Youve pointed out rightly so that we havent even considered or done similar things that we have done to far less egregious offenders in the world today and i would like to ask why has there been such restraint on dealing with north korea in the same way weve dealt with far less it doesnt make any sense to me why has we been so reticent to do so . That is an excellent question that i dont have an answer to. It really is counterintuitive. If you just compare iran and north korea, iran remains in the nonproliferation treaty that out, iran claims that its Nuclear Program is for civilian purposes quite clearly to its allies and has not exploded a nuclear device. North korea has done for and they have oil. One would think we have more pressure. There are perhaps the concerns held north korea will respond if we impose additional measures. I dont think we should be hesitant to enforce the law because of the concerns of what the criminal will do if we enforce them. Similarly, as weve already talked about how what china respond . When i advocated additional measures against north korea, i said let the Law Enforcement people go where the evidence takes them and someone commented to me you want to sacrifice the allimportant u. S. China relationship over north korea. No, what im saying is i dont want to give him immunity from the law simply because they are china. We should go where the evidence takes us and sanctioned whatever entities are violating the un resolutions not because they are chinese but because the are violating our law. I think that your answer kind of dovetails the Opening Statement of the Ranking Member and i think that these comments really have a lot of burying going forward. I think that they are really shouldnt be any sacred cows when it comes to enforcing the law and protection of special interest or ongoing concerns of the bilateral relationship in china bees are serious issues and china has not stood up for its obligations in this realm. What about the u. S. Bolstering our support for the Missile Defense system for south korea at the least and maybe japan what do you think about that . I think thats a great idea. First, when there was a Section Three against in 2005 there was lawenforcement action. And in the end, the relationship survived. And it was a very effective measure. And it actually may take things like that to motivate china. We are almost assaulted during in this sense, suppose that equities in the relationship with regards to measures with other countries in the region. I think absolutely. This, all activities speak for much more Robust Network Missile Defense systems in asia including the United States, japan, south korea. As mentioned there are opportunities here in south korea to talk about more selfdefense as well as better intelligence and information sharing among the three countries. So weve been able to push them forward and as unfortunate as it is when we were working on the policy every time they created some bad, the motto in the office was lets make lemonade out of the lemon and one of the ways to make lemonade out of his to consolidate the defense alliances and that complicates china and may motivate them to do more. Last year, i wrote a Detailed Research paper that south korea should allow the u. S. To deploy the High Altitude air defense system. To date the administration has not even wanted to publicly discuss it. And as i pointed out in the paper, the sad is better than anything the South Koreans have or will have for decades to come it is more capable. Also i would point out that the chinese claim that it will in pair their ability to assault the United States or our allies. It has no constraint on the chinese missiles, so therefore the objections are politically based. So i think that we should deploy that and be defensive forces handed south korea and also to integrate into the markham dance of effective system japan because we are all in this together. The same missile could be aimed on the same trajectory in the u. S. Forces were forces in japan which are critical for the republic of korea. Its no secret that the relationship between china and south korea has blossomed over the last several years and theyve tried to do everything they can to improve trade in all aspects of the bilateral relationship and theyve lobbied to step up their resources and the commitment to security and for support like that and to try to reignite some support for those things because maybe just maybe besides being good policy, from our strategic interest, it may be for china to finally get up and do something about this serious problem. The chair recognizes mr. Sherman. Why did he do it in iran and not north korea so i think i will answer the question. When Congress Passed the sanctions law they provided secondary which is the only way to go after the regimes that if the law had been enforced in force if it is made that part was very angry. Administrations refuse to enforce those law and theyve been given more time to the Nuclear Weapon. But, they began to persuade the trading partners and that they should go along with this pressure only to the extent that we could without angering the partners that we carried out. Who are we persuading, europe. We had sanctions not to get give europe typically angry if we go along. It would be considerably more difficult so the chairman and i are talking about, for example, sanctions on the chinese banks in development of china angry dealing with iran, the administration got as far as it did without making anybody really angry. I think that the program is significant enough that we should be willing to make them angry. I might talk about a tear terrif but they would be pretty angry at the sanctions. You say there are some that about but it is a terrorist state. One act of terrorism is when you see civilian hostages and the act of terrorism continues at least until you release the hostages. And if you seized japanese home acres and hold them hostage for decades because you want somebody to teach you how to pour tea, thats an act of terrorism is there any doubt north korea is engaged in terrorism until they release the hostages they had seized . Or for those that have died . Thereve been many actions in that vein almost the regular state practice containing innocent individuals and other nationalities in the country for no apparent reason and thats just unacceptable. My only point is that i think that the only area that we could investigate in terms of the criteria for putting them back on the list is the cyber area. The cyber terrorism is bad enough but when you seize people and hold them for decades because you want somebody to teach you a ceremony. They are very status and the boost to your ego is to have the icbm. Its to develop a Nuclear Weapon to smuggle one. It isnt going to stop that and in fact you would have the additional advantage of having the plausible d. My ability and a delay so the retaliation doesnt occur in cold blood or after a 90 day investigatory process. The north Korean Technology just a quick question to any of the witnesses have any guess as to how much money they were given for cooperating . Im not seeing any witnesses. There have been hundreds of thousands of dollars. We know two things. Iran wants a weapon and they are about to get their hands on 30 billion. Would north korea be willing to sell dot theyve proven they are already willing to sell Nuclear Weapons tests if you will or equipment. Does north korea have enough weapons they would be willing to sell one or two of them and is this a multibillion multibilliondollar cost for whoever wants to buy them . In my written testimony i have a long list of actions north korea has taken that fulfill the legal obligation for listing them as a terrorist nation. There is. Theres a number of u. S. Statutes perhaps the most relevant is the team u. S. Code 2331 which defines International Terrorism and as involving violent acts that would be a violation of criminal law to the u. S. And that appeared to be intended to intimidate a population. I think that the threads of the 9 11 type of attack for the citizens of the u. S. Or inhabitants to go to theaters and watch that movie. And there is other items that ive left it in the north korean attempts at assassination and kidnapping and that have been recognized by the south korean courts. I think anyone of those should have put them back on the u. S. List. They would sell the Nuclear Weapon if you point out they have shared and sold Nuclear Missile technologies with a list of the rogue nations. I question whether they would sell a completed within. It would go beyond what they are willing to theyre willing to do but i could be very hard on that. They need need the weapons to defend themselves from us and the 13 doesnt go on ebay but it could be available. Whatever theyve developed theyve sold and and they havent drawn the line at nuclear had things gone as planned for the operating combination at alpha bar would have a Plutonium Nuclear device and its not that they say we couldnt participate in that. In the case as you know well, its been the case. Longrange missiles are to sell them so you cant put it past them for the nuclear site. By virtue of the fact they have a Nuclear Arsenal thats growing creates all sorts of crisis and stability problems for the United States. The notion that they can keep a dozen or so and we detour them into the detour that we are safe and that is completely wrong because should any crisis develop on the peninsula. They are developing. Ive gone over my time. I yield back. Mr. Rohrabacher. I will try not to go over my time. First, let me thank the witnesses for the testimony thats been a big great value to me and to this committee. The points that youve made, all of you, youve made some serious points and given this information, we will utilize in this coming year as we try to come up with a policy that can deal with this threat and its ironic we seem the United States and the world is entering a new era. The cold war is being left along behind the wave in the postcold war era is being left along now. And how we operate in the world is going to be different and ironically, the country and the government of may be forcing us into the new definition of what the responsibilities are and what we are going to do is one of the most anachronistic regimes in the world. They dont even fit into the cold war in the way they handle themselves. I really appreciate the information about the specifics of the north korean government is doing and the actual people who are running the north korean government put up with in terms of the ideas of slavery that they are actually engaged in slavery. Youve made an important point today. Its intolerable and those are thousands of north korean workers overseas and all of the salaries being given to the government, that is i believe the virtual slavery. Thank you for joining our attention to that. Thats something we should be able to deal with and work with and for international organizations. With me that i agree with and im very pleased with the Ranking Member mr. Sherman as has pointed out. They are Holding Japanese hostages over decades and i agree with him that shouldnt be overlooked if that is a past issue that they are kidnapped in Holding Japanese civilians in north korea is something that should be a matter that is not obligated to the past so long as they are holding these people and that should be part of what we are looking at. Whatever we are entering in, we know that its going to be different and what may come of this is that we may find that the reunification of korea becomes a reality after all these decades and will itself create a new world that we have to deal with. We are talking about the historic moments in the world. Thats where we are at and it is being brought about by this crazy regime in north korea thats forcing the change is upon us. I would also like to mention that we are now entering the era where our technology isnt just being utilized for offensive weapon systems, and thanks to Ronald Reagan we started down a path of building and focusing on the defensive systems, which make a lot more sense to me especially in cases like this and let me note that there are several new technologies that will give us an even greater ability to defend ourselves against a missile attack. We certainly should make that available to south korea and to japan and that would be a message there. What we ask again for some more information from you folks. Some where in the back of my mind is a action that we took, and maybe i am just disclosing something to prevent the transfer of money that was going to specific individuals to the government we know that with the poverty at the lack of food hasnt prevented luxury cars and booze and expensive consumer items going to their very elite and i seem to remember there were banking transactions that we challenged in some way that had an impact on the north korean policy. Could you refresh my memory on that and is that a methodology that we should try to look at now to reestablish the policy . What you are referring to is section 311 by the Treasury Department in 2005 advised that Financial Institutions not to deal with a particular bank because of Money Laundering concerns. Weve always talked about how we sanctioned the north korea financially but what we do is advise the Financial Institutions to be wary of the business in the particular bank and then created a Ripple Effect that you described where many of the bank that have the accounts noted the are going to freeze these or investigate to target these accounts and have the effect of companies be shutting north korea off or access Bank Accounts through the atm it was quite a powerful and forceful thing and north korea tried to adjust for the the same time they are able to operate in the financial system. Are we talking about Bank Accounts that are being controlled to operate for the benefit of the leadership of specific leaders if north korea and decisionmakers backed what i can say is when that action happened, the north korean negotiators when they came back to the table had only one demand. That is to freeze the dollars that were sitting in the bank. They didnt want to talk about anything else under the sun. They didnt want to talk about peace treaty or anything else. All they wanted to talk about gives you a sense of how important it was to them. Do the other witnesses have a comment on the . s pick this takes spec this takes us back to the issue of china where there are so many of these small banks that exist along the border and sometimes they shut down and pop up someplace else. There are some journalists who have gotten into some of these banks just to demonstrate to show out easy it is to transfer money to north korea and going to shut down the banking transactions on the banks this is essential to get the chinese to comply the sanctions that are already off the books and the chinese have supported in the United Nations and when it comes to things like luxury goods and inspections on the border there are times they appear to want to signal that they are dissatisfied with something and then they go back to business as usual. If i could just add we talk about the Chinese Government resistance to actions that we can get the banks to work in our interest as i mentioned before the officials in asia including the bank of china to talk about section 311 they could face seizure and their assets and be precluded from accessing the u. S. Financial system which is the kiss of death even though the Chinese Government was urging them to resist any pressure the banks themselves have their own access to the international system, so they comply. Even if the Chinese Government didnt want it, they had to take these actions themselves to maintain the bank of china as an entity. Thank you and welcome to the panel. I would begin by respect to iran and comparing it to north korea, this administration took up on the neglect of the Previous Administration with respect to iran and whether you like it or not, the agreement is working. They are compliant and if you want to remove the excess dental threat, thats the way we did it and its in my view it has the best probability of working any solution offered on the table. Maybe one doesnt like that. Maybe one would have preferred a different alternative. Its for taking the Nuclear Option with respect to iran off the table. One of the pieces of leverage we had was choking off the ability to sell one product it really had. We dont have an analogous situation other than weapons. Im not quite sure what it is that we could choke off. Would that be a Fair Assessment . I would agree with you i dont know if north korea has to so. To analogize, there are differences between north korea beginning of the fact that north korea has Nuclear Weapons and iran does not but i would agree with the planes that have been made by bruce and director cha that there are mechanisms and sanctions we have used and executive authorities we have used against iran that we havent used against north korea. So there are many more ways that we could pressure north korea. In fact, we applied i. E. I believe. It is a devils advocate question and im not promoting it but is that the best way to try to restrain and shape the behavior to tighten sanctions and economic consequences because they would have this at some point. Is that what history tells us about north korea . In itself, if we are not offering north korea a positive vision of the future, then the sanctions are unlikely to work. The United States under this administration and the Prior Administration who made it clear there are many things we can put on the table, security assurances, assistants, diplomatic relations, there is such a thing if you want to call it a grand bargain. They are aware that there would be benefits from them if they give up their Nuclear Weapons. So, pressure by itself of course will not work. It must be part of any strategy. When i talk about these in the past, ive always emphasized the context that it is one instrument and its not always an effective one. Just as diplomacy hasnt been effective. So when we often get into a binary debate of the sanctions and engagement, we need both. Its part of a comprehensive strategy. So, we need to condition the continual engagement based on conditionality, reciprocity, unfortunately we have had many agreements for them never to pursue Nuclear Weapons and to give up the weapons they promise never to do in the first place. Additional pressure we just hope will convince them to alter its behavior and bent you also need the third track to ensure that you have sufficient defenses for your self and your allies. But when people say sanctions dont work because it hasnt cut up the weapon, it is unable to do that but the sanctions have a number of other purposes one is to enforce the u. S. Law and the penalty of the cost of pain when someone violates the law so hopefully the deterrent would be violators. Number three is putting in place mechanisms to impede the flow of prohibited items and components for the Nuclear Missile programs in the into the money from the illicit activities and to prevent or constrain the proliferation and five got the most difficult is to it is to alter their behavior i would argue they have had some success. Very quickly on the question about whether the expert of value surely what is the value for a couple of things that come to mind in addition to the things bruce already talked about one of the things is this issue of slavery for per that is providing income to them and something that is in violation of the standards even though they are not a signatory and thats one area where it is a value to them and there is a lot of material in north korea and china but has extracted a lot of that. When people are in the capital city they say things look petty good there. Thats because of all of the money and contracts and that is another area. On the diplomacy side i dont think that anybody on the panel is against diplomacy but i have to say that having participated in the negotiations for the last agreements in the nuclear agreements, and knowing a lot about the Clinton Administration agreements, they know what they get. We put everything on the table. And the issue right now is that this leader is not interested in is looking to build the program because he wants to confront the next administration. The one Inflection Point weve got is our relationship with china and their relationship with pyongyang. How much of a relationship do they really have because from a distance it looks like they are in a conundrum themselves. They have got relationships they dont want to walk away from. They dont even want to unwittingly destabilize the peninsula and have to deal with that mess. They would probably want to be organization from the south but that is so far away they cant really effectuate that so how much leverage do they have and how well are we pressuring them to try to effectuate better behavior from the north korean . As i said in my early remarks, they have enormous potential leverage they are willing to use it and because they are fearful of instability in north korea in the leverage that they have an essence becomes the leverage over them. Even his father has done quite a good job of playing a very weak hand not only with the United States and other countries but particularly with china, so occasionally i think they cause trouble in a variety of ways along the border, and in terms of the threats that they make towards south korea. I think the need to be motivated to do do the pressure that they have and i dont think that we have done a very good job of doing that. I agree that we should not be self deterred putting pressure on china were worried that if we put pressure on china they will somehow not cooperate on Climate Change for example. We can use pressure if properly applied and i think it can have an impact on chinese behavior and i would cite the example when he was preparing to come to the United States last september they would impose a cyber sanctions and have the executive authority to do so and the chinese got very motivated to set up a new mechanism to send a standing member of the bureau to discuss this issue. This may not in the end to solve the problem of the cyber hacking and i certainly think we have to keep their feet to the fire on that issue. But the point is when you threaten sanctions and have the executive authority to do so, then they take you seriously but yes, you can motivate their behavior. It was also the discussion earlier about bolstering the Missile Defense and i think taking steps to defend american interests and the interest interests of our allies and if they happen to create a more negative security environment for china in the region that may motivate the chinese to do more this isnt something they want to say. It doesnt benefit or interest various mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. Weve raised an issue they dont have much to export possibly they could export some cyber hacking trading seminars. The chair recognizes. Thank you mr. Chairman and the panel of witnesses for your thoughtful insights today. Doctor cha, i wanted to ask you to view belief that north korea would use Nuclear Weapons for aggressive actions . I dont think it the intent of is the intent of any Nuclear Weapon states including north korea for the aggressive purposes. Having said that, there are easy contingencies one could imagine where a country especially north korea could miscalculate and i could draw some of those areas for you which they have no intent to use because the military miscalculation wasnt compelled to add that is what is so destabilizing of the current situation. I just want to talk little bit about perception. Ive not been to south korea or japan. Do they feel the same threat from north korea that israel does with iran . Feels morally threatened by the developments of north korea, the Missile Program as well as the Nuclear Program. Is the clearest existential threat. With regard to south korea the heaven under the fear of artillery attacks. Artillery tubes are seconds away, and there is now a growing concern. If you have been under conventional military, biochemical all your life you get a little jaded, but there is a growing concern about the broader strategic implications. And i am going somewhere with this. My sense is that here in this country we have a country, the only one in this century testing Nuclear Weapons a week ago. Well it was not a thermoNuclear Weapon. And therefore we dont need to worry about it. I will tell you that every member of congress understands the threat israel feels. It is something that israel has done to raise the perception that everyone has learned respect the threat, and am not sure that is the same with north korea. Maybe we need to raise the perception. Every member of congress, democratic republican generally takes a trip to israel when they first go to congress and they see and they feel that threat. Maybe do something japan and south korea and other nations that feel threatened should do to help increase that perception in congress because right now, you hear the news about syria come about basis, about the iran deal. Its sucking up all the oxygen and also people are paying attention to. You have a lot of great ideas of what to do but how do we get action. Thats why we are here today. In your opinion, what do we do to elevate the reality that this is the real threat . Ive been sitting here with my colleague talk about this problem should be solved but yet its not happening. It doesnt seem that hard but apparently it is. What we suggest that what each panelist a chance to respond, 30 seconds each. I would agree with you that i think outside of this chamber, more broadly in American Public there is a tendency to dismiss north korea activities as basically a crazy regime that blows up bumps in a cave somewhere new china. And that we dont have to worry about that. I think thats completely the wrong attitude. In part because there was a United States sometimes overreacted in the past to north korea in actions and played into their hands. I think we are not in a period in which we are under reacting and i think its very dangerous. North korea is easy to ridicule and its easy to make the butt of jokes as members of the panel have pointed out. It is a very real threat to the Nuclear Threat, a biological total threat that conventional forces, cyber threats, human rights threats. It runs the gamut and its not only against our allies but increasingly to the United States. Last year three u. S. 4star commanders said that north korea has a Nuclear Weapon that could hit the United States today. They must know something. A year or so ago south korean press had a lot of articles from defectors from kim jongun had directed a new war plan b implement it after, or greater country came into office so that north korea could take after take over the peninsula before u. S. Could flow reinforcements there. That is the use of Nuclear Weapons. It is a real threat. It is also disheartening to me that there is an under appreciation for how much of a threat north korea Nuclear Weapons poses. And, of course, israel is such a perfect job in congress and in the American Public at large. I think more can be done in the area of public education. And certainly hearings such as this and on north koreas human rights record i think would be better informed in highlighting this issue. More actions at the United Nations as well to get more people involved in this discussion help people to understand that we need to really, to dissect what the threat is, see hat it is increasingly an existential threat and not just with on the back burner. I completely agree, i share your concern. Thank you, chairman. I appreciate you bringing up this issue and each of you expressing your shared concerns about this under appreciation and really a lack of understanding about the threat. Represent hawaiis second district, it is you imagine being out in the middle of the pacific every time north korea starts making threats, launching these tests, this is something knowing as you said, mr. Klingner, ally and the west coast at a minimum only are within range of north koreas the building both of an icbm as well as a Nuclear Weapon. This is something that really rings true and is deeply understood by folks in my state who recognize the need for stronger Missile Defense, who recognize the need for taking this threat with the seriousness that it deserves. Ive got a few questions. The sanctions bill that we passed yesterday on particular as relates to hard currency, do you believe it will have the same effect as in 2005 when it was first put in place . For whomever would like to answer. I think the bill is great, and i think that the mechanism is still there to carry out the same source of financial targeted financial sanctioning. North korea since 2005 has tried to circumvent this. But again a lot of it depends on what entities which used to sanction, what individuals we choose to target. And chinese compliance with that. Having said that i can easily imagine things that we can do that would not collapse the u. S. China relationship, or as mr. Sherman said, not have a major effect on wall street. Theres plenty of room to operate. So along those lines would look back to what happened in 2005 and will lead to their agreement to 2007 when those sanctions were lifted, i would just like to hear your thoughts on what you see is a viable path forward should that ended be reached. Should be sanctions be so effective that we get to a point where weve got an opportunity there. Understanding really that north korea seize their Nuclear Program as an insurance policy against regime change, seen what they learn from what happened in libya with gadhafi and really what caused i think that window frankly to close or they wouldnt trust that it was an agreement to denuclearize at the United States wouldnt go after them to try to influence the regime change. I would just like to hear your thoughts on engagement with north korea and how understanding this climate of there is a path forward. Just commenting on yesterdays bill, it closes a number of loopholes. It elevates a number of existing executive orders or regulations to legislation giving it additional power. It makes a number of implementations mandatory rather than discretionary. So i think it will provide a number of benefits to the u. S. Effort. But the bill as well as existing measures, its a lot dependent on the implementation and our willingness to use the powers we already have. Last year the executive order that was released in january allows the u. S. To sanction north korean officials simply forbidding north korean officials. We dont even have to provide evidence that it conducted illegal activity. The u. S. Sanction 16 russian officials for being russian officials after the crime the incursion. We havent used about as much as we could. The target is change. Banco delta asia was rejected because of the very large conduit. North korea has adapted since then. Its sort of like the cockroach theory of Law Enforcement. You going to a kitchen, turn on the light, see with the cockroaches are and whether what ill do. If you take out the first of plan if north korea given a larger intelligence and Law Enforcement so the watch where the money gets redirected, where the cockroaches go. Its been you go after plan b. On the issue of engagement, we talked about earlier we have to have a strategy that deals with, it gives them coast composed of engagement as well as coercive steps. As far as i understand the United States and gauges with north korea, we have a chip in new york. We do talk to the North Koreans, but i think we have to be careful about agreeing to revive the sixparty talks mechanism as the chinese often encourage us to do in the absence of some return to the commitments that the North Koreans made under the 2005 and other agreements. The North Koreans want to engage in dialogue so that they can get a peace treaty and the recognize as a Nuclear Weapons state. I think thats a bad outcome for the United States and our interests and our allies. So we have to engage north korea in a way that they understand that there are steps that they have to take, they have to go back to these commitments that giving up Nuclear Weapons and if theyre willing to go ahead with a freeze as a first step with the understanding that the goal is that they eventually give them up, then i think the United States has always been one to work with the. I dont think that are signed up under kim jongun that the North Koreans are willing to engage in serious negotiations with the end goal of denuclearizing the peninsula. So i think that engagement yes, we have to be careful about how we use it. Thank you, mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and for continuing to increase awareness on north koreas threat. Thank you very much. Recognize brigadier general. Congressman gary will be fine. Thanks to the chairman, thanks to the filter list of questions, maybe just all of once and if you would comment. Understand we are reportedly in talks with south korea regarding the reproduction Nuclear Weapons, United States Nuclear Weapons on the peninsula. What is the status of that if you know . Why wouldnt south korea be interested . Regarding the introduction of the Missile Defense interceptor system, why not . What is out of concern that it would be too provocative . Why wouldnt they want that . Regarding curtailing conventional arms sales, how would that be done . Again ive been listening as everybody else has the whole time saying why arent we doing this . You folks want expert and you dont know. Maybe you can give me some insight into that. Regarding increasing the pressure on their human rights atrocities which are just unimaginable to me, whats the best way to ask whats the best way to do that . From my standpoint i, like you folks, dont understand why we are not imposing these financial sanctions out of hand, like with your Morning Coffee, to meet the president to meet the president should just sign it and move onto the next future. Thats my perception. What would be the response to some of these things from our allies and trading partners in the region . Thank you. Ill take a piece of those and then i will look to bruce to take of the pieces of it. In terms of the why, why havent we done more question, one aspect of this is china and we got a full discussion on the. I think the other part of it is that its priority and commitment. This has not been a priority, unfortunately, even though as i a very dangerous situation. There has to be a political commitment to make the north korean regime feel like theres a cost to the behavior. Theres been a political commitment and to implement. I think part of the reason there hasnt been that is that theres always been some hope theres a chance for diplomacy like with iran, like with cuba or like with me and mark. I am of the view we are not going to see any diplomacy to get into this administration. If i can interrupt code is there a Downside Risk . I dont see a lot of Downside Risk. Understand theres no commitment to going outside edge of my expense and capital. I just dont see any, like what to do this by doing this speak with the primary downside has to do with china and relationship with china. At least thats the perceived downside. Then theres a degree of inertia. I think there is a degree of inertia because this is an issue traditionally that administrations want to put on the shelf. You dont necessarily want to commit to solve it. They want to put on the shelf and so theres almost a pattern to this. Into a provocation, we issue a statement, we slap a sanction on them and then everybody goes back to dealing with other issues. That is a rapidly deteriorating situation. If i could address them in reverse order. On human rights atrocities as i have in my statement, a number of cases where weve imposed sanctions and measures on other countries for their Human Rights Violations but not north korea. We have the authority to do so. Weve done it to other countries. Also the executive quarter of last 10 which gives us the authority to sentenc sanctions r being a member of the government. Tomorrow with his Morning Coffee the president put at 50 north korean entities including kim jongun by name as well as every named in the u. N. Commission of inquiry report as well as the heads of all those agencies. I dont know why we dont do that. Curtailing conventional arms sales, the u. N. Resolutions not only cover the Nuclear Missile programs, they also prevent trade unconventional arms. There have been at least three interceptions of conventional arms shipments from north korea to other nations but apparently and the resolution sanction busting hierarchy, they are not worth enforcing because they didnt even contain u. N. Meetings about those violations. One thing we should be pushing for at the u. N. Is Chapter Seven clause 42 authority which allows military enforcement of u. N. Resolutions. That doesnt attack. Because an inpatient but it provides the authority for coast guard interception of ships. Weve had cases where the u. S. Warships have been trading north korean freighters for hundreds of miles because we didnt have the authority to board or inspect them. On thad i continue my report. South korea has been hesitant because of chinese pressure. Last night during a major speech President Park i think for the first ive heard administration said they wanted to discuss with the United States the possible to plug up thad to the peninsula. And reintroducing Nuclear Weapons, thats very contentious both the u. S. And south korean governments have said they dont see a military necessity putting use Nuclear Weapons on the ground in south korea because we have seabased and airbased weapons can back into the job and wouldnt fight a preemptive target in south korea from north korea. If i could just add briefly, congressman. President park has attached a great deal of priority to china to hopefully do gain chinas support for putting more pressure on china. I agree with my colleagues i think that is the main issue with thad. I dont think that President Park is unbelievable on this issue with the growing threat she may agree. But the chinese seek to weaken u. S. Alliances, and this is a major problem in trying to do with the north korea problem. And less we can have a bigger strategy with the chinese, make this a priority and perhaps give china some of the reassurances that congressman sherman was talking about earlier, we really have a reunified peninsula and we dont need to necessarily have troops on chinas borders. The chinese are very concerned about that the situation could be far more detrimental to them today than in the future than it is today. I also think theres an issue with the United States giving china credit for very small steps it takes to for example, supporting the u. N. Security council resolution, that it has been noted, prevented the application, for example, of economic sanctions, banking sanctions just because its right wants to isolate north korea. That is a valuable goal, yes, we should seek to isolate north korea, but at the same time we should be putting far greater pressure on china to do more. The chinese belief that the United States is not prioritizing this issue. They see us as having put this on the back burner and so little incentive for them to attach priority to it either. I think we just continue to reward bad behavior as much as the chinese are acting to a delicate dance with the economy and their political system, at the end of the day i think that it serves the purpose to north korea remain communist or totalitarian. That our economy is at the heart and thats what they want to maintain with all due respect to south korea and the president. Understand what she can to get to but at the heart they are communist and thats who they are. Thank you, mr. Chairman for the hearing. I would like to thank the panel members. I think this is been an incredibly productive hearing. Congressman perry tony asked a lot of questions i think that a lot of us have been entertaining ourselves. A lot of the wise. Is north korea less of a threat than they were several years ago when there was tons of Media Attention and concern across america, and just three short years ago in the president ial debates it was front and center, one of most important issues of our time. The only thing that kind of comes to mind is an old adage, if a tree falls in the forest, if nobody hears it didnt make a sound . We just havent focused the attention. What i say we, i dont think its been a pretty for the last three years. The question i have is what is going to take . I think thats why we are here today. Because an absence of leadership on this issue, i think that that realm falls to us, that we have a responsibility they do stand up and try to take matters into our hands, whether its trying to influence south korea on thad whether its looking at potential new sanctions or at the very least we declaring north korea a terrorist state. The our lots of options i think that are on the table and thats the reason that we did very today. Not just to shine light, not just to talk but i think our goal is to try to put together legislation, bill were several bills that will try to move us in the right direction. My intention is to work with the panelists to try to craft that legislation and market up for a full committee hearing. Because while other parts of the globe are in jeopardy, this doesnt diminish the threat that this part of the globe holds. And just because we are not paying attention to it doesnt mean that its not a serious threat. I think its time we focus our attention on this serious, serious, serious issue that poses a threat to not just our national security, our allies national security, a Global National security, the threat of a net job like kim jongun having deployment capabilities with a Nuclear Weapon is incredibly frightening not job what about the possibility, even if its remote, what about the possibility of a partnership between north korea and iran with all the money that iran now has or will have, and Nuclear Capabilities in north korea. What about the possibility of joining forces to become an uber threat to everything that we hold dear. I think that this is, this hearing is not an indian place. Its a beginning place for what needs to take our attention. I think, mr. Sherman, you wanted to make a comment. As to our attention, they say in journalism, if it bleeds it leads. The middle east, therefore, gets the attention. And it deserves some attention, but this north korean problem is a threat to asia and the United States. And then as to the possible connection between north korea and iran, we need an agreement with china that the are no nonstop flights between north korea and iran. They would all go over chinese airspace. We dont have to make a big political deal. Just informed the planes that if you want to fly over your airspace they got to stop in the chinese city for retooling. It would be unsafe for them to go that extra mile although it up without stopping or refueling. And if that happens im sure the chinese will take a look at the plague if we dont have that, someone is there on the one hand, the desire for Nuclear Weapons, and the 13th Nuclear Weapon goes on ebay. I yield back. I think which will include is that we have to break outside existing paradigm to the status quo is not working. So we have to be creative and start coming up with some maybe old ideas with him or some new ideas. Im open. So thank you very much thank you, Ranking Member, and Committee Members as well. This meeting is now adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] booktv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on cspan2. Heres some programs to watch out for this weekend. China should go economically and its a wonderful idea that in one or two generations we sing everybody go from bicycle aspiration to bmw. Yes, good for them. So if the one child policy help them people get to that stage, i would be all for it. Then the problem was it didnt have that much to do with this Economic Growth that china had for the last 30 years. On sunday, professor Courtney Young discusses her book in which examines the impact of breastfeeding policies on american society. Breastfeeding its very convenient into an American Health paradigm that increasingly blind individuals themselves for Poor Health Outcomes and for the soaring costs of American Health care. Watch booktv all weekend every weekend on cspan2. Television for serious readers. Next week the british house of commons will debate and donald trump the United Kingdom because of his comments about muslims. British Parliament Debates motion that more than 100,000 signatures in an online edition. More than five and 70,000 people signed a petition calling for donald trump to be banned from great britain. The parliamentary debate is monday 11 30 a. M. Eastern and you can watch it live on cspan. British Prime Minister David Cameron this week testified before the house of Commons Liaison Committee which is made up of chairman of the Parliament Select committee. Prime minister answered questions about Climate Change, the civil war and syria and refugees. Good afternoon. Thank you for coming to give evidence to the first of the liaison committees Public Meeting in this session. I first of all want to establish that youre going to continue the practice of the last parliament and appeared three times this session because yes, i think him it would all agree, i thought last time it worked quite well to have three sessions, one in this, when between eastern and summer, one later in the year. I think this idea of picking subjects to be served by your rather than going to the unhappy either way. Weve got a bit of a backlog, try to get you for christmas but that was impossible. So we would be very grateful if you would make two more appearances this session. One between easter and summer recess and one speakers i think it will be two before summer. I have not bank on that. I think that might be more difficult. Would you like to let me take that away and think about it. Prime minister, it is so much hope there was a prospect towards a ceasefire and negotiations, relied upon the International Community that partners with a few bringing their clients to the table putting some pressure on. What is your assessment as to whether that willingness, put people pressure on their own clients in the Syrian Civil War is still in place . Well, i mean, the good thing is there is a process enters a process with intentions and i think suggested kerry has done an amazing job to bring about some momentum by holding that meeting before christmas and saying he wants to see meeting on the 25th of january between the opposition and the regime. That would be a great step forward. So what pressure can add when put under clients, im not sure i totally kind of use that phrase but certainly the relationship we have with opposition groups we will be encouraging them to come forward. We help with the conference that took place in saudi arabia were large number of different opposition groups came together, signed up to the geneva principles and were encouraging them to form up properly so they can carry out a dialogue with the regime. Theres a warning sign i would make, this is been incredibly difficult because to continue to begin a process you need saudi arabia and iran in december. Thats difficult to meet opposition groups to sit down opposite regime figures who they rightly blame for the most appalling brutality. Weve seen whats happened recent days. Its a very good difficult but its essential so whic we just d as hard as we can and thats what we are doing. What saudi arabia has done recently, seek to drive iran out of a more constructive place that is trying to find for the International Community. I dont think so. You would have to ask the saudi to explain why they did and why they did in the way they did. I think they have as we do a great interest in a more stable than six, i syria that includes a government that represents sunni as well as the shia. So obviously theres deep tensions between iran and saudi arabia but i think its in everybodys interest to make this political process work. It will become more difficult because of the war of words and more between iran and saudi arabia that we should do everything we can to try to get them around the table together and i think its in the interest and i think they know it is in their interest. Canceling your visit and saudi arabia, actually to disrupt International Cohesion immensely critical time. My plans were based on the fact government has an emerging gulf study that we are breaking. Its an important area for the country economically in terms of security, and in terms of trying to create forces for stability relief. So the gulf strategy is all about that, we engaging i it isa we think the previous governments rather disengaged, countries like uae and bahrain and what have you. So its a plant of engagement. My travel arranges have been more about the fact ive been rather busy with one or two european issues i need to bring to a conclusion but i hope to make comprehensive golf trip at some stage in the coming months. The sunni kurds have so far been excluded from these talks. Which the British Governments view of that conclusion which they have now requested the . Obviously its a sensitive issue because of the turkish position. I think thats the best i can say is that syrian kurds are playing an Important Role in terms of a military campaign against daesh in syria. Im sure we will talk about the figure of 70,000 nonextremist forces. And, of course, that didnt include the 20,000 kurds. But the inclusion and political process is more difficult, but lets be clear, a future syria need to be a syria in which sunnishia, christian, alawite, kurds see that they put able. Its extraordinary because the Kurdish Forces both in syria and in iraq are the ones who are cooperating with most closely in military terms and it seems they are not to have somewhat of a seat at the table. Surely we should be supporting them being present at this as part of the opposition. We want the process as inclusive as possible but practical about this in a way that tries to keep it on track as far as we can. Some of this goes to the wider concern about turkey and turkey putting or indeed the turkish governments fight with the pkk head of the wider interest in establishing the framework to take on the enemy, which is isil. What can you tell us about, what can you tell us about your reading of turkish policy and intention, and just how much good faith should replace in turkeys commitment to getting these talks and a settlement away so we can fight our common enemy, isil . The best i can say is that the British Government as long as others will do everything we can to say to our allies and friends the turks that the enemy is daesh. That is where the focus should be. And, of course, we dont agree with a jumble of everybody together and just label them one large terrorist group as they sometimes do. We are very clear daesh is the enemy, you know, in terms of helping to bring about a daesh free iraq. Clearly the kurds have got a great role to play. As i said they been taking important action in syria. This is an ongoing process of working with the turks to convince them thats the right approach. And understanding, its important got to understand their concern. Weve been advocates of bringing turkey within planning a european family of nations. And get now the policy and our intentions seem opaque. Is not a good place to be. We would like them to be even more focused than they are on daesh. I think that is improving and changing. I think if you look for and since the work theyre doing along the turkish border, the interdiction of oil supplies and oil smuggling, the work they are doing with partner Intelligence Services across europe including in britain, i would say theyre stepping up the work theyre doing to counter danish. And everything, we need to encourage that as much as we c can. Theres a parallel in the behavior of turkey without a pakistan over policy towards afghanistan where theyre costly since the very least a double game being played by pakistan. Is there a danger there is a double game being played . I dont think thats fair. I dont think that is a fair comparison. Turkey has suffered at the hands directly of daesh, isil in terms of losing its own citizens. Clearly, you know, if you talk to turkish politicians, they do have concerns about kurdish inspired terrorism, and the past, dressing and potentially future. But i think to say some of that they are not fully committed to reducing, reading syria of isil, i dont think thats fair. Prime minister i like to start off with the governments determination to see assad and his regime removed. And in march 2003 you and i and a large majority of mps from both main parties voted for the invasion of iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein who i think would easily agree is as brutal if not more so than a socket in light of what we now know happened afterwards, do you share my view that we actually voted the wrong way and that it was a terrible mistake, even though Saddam Hussein was a terribly brutal dictator . I dont choose to go back over these votes and take that view. I think there are important lessons to learn that what happened afterwards, the dismantling of the entire regime, the dismantling of the armed forces, the radical debaathification of the entire country meant that there was no state, there was no afford it. And i think that was the biggest problem of all. We learned a lesson from that. Drawing conclusions between these two groups of people, they were very ghastly. I think the extent of the health of assad has rained down on his own people, weve seen it most recently with using hunger as a weapon of war, you know, you could certainly say that just as brutal if not worse that Saddam Hussein did. I didnt have a great theres little to choose between them and it is responsive because i and many other people have learned a lesson from the earlier event that i refer to it, and the lesson is that sometimes you can remove a very brutal dictator and you end up with a worse situation. And arguably some might say that the same thing has happened in libya. Do you except then the principal if there isnt a choice between a brutal secular dictator and a totalitarian islamist alternative, it can make sense to leave a brutal secular dictator in place . I think where you and i disagree is i think that its impossible in my view, to really envision a situation in which assad stays in power and syria isnt a threat to our National Interest. Its a threat to our National Interest in two very important ways. Bears the migration crisis engulfing europe which is for a threat to our interests, and that migration crisis, a large part of the course is assad. Aand the second reason is that what our National Interest is as long as you have assad in power i think you are in danger of having a daesh style, sunni broken tears style state in western syria. So i dont, you know, i dont really buy the idea that theyre sorted is an alternative view in which you say, well, lets pick the one that is least bad and sort of make an accommodation with them. Because i just dont think that would work. I think you would still have the problems of the migration crisis. You still have a problem i think of daesh because hes been such a recruiting sergeant for daesh. You have to ask yourself, look at the pictures of people starving to death, or people have left because they been bombed out of their houses but assad. Is there any prospect that they could be part of a syria run by this man . It seems to me wanting aside to leave power, to me, then he can be part of the future Prime Minister system as much a question of political preference. Is a statement of political back. I dont think you can have a state of syria with assad in power so that if i dont go down to comparison. I think the problem clearly is lessons to be learned from previous conflicts in terms of not dismantling states in terms of having plans for reconstruction come in terms of thinking through political and i agree with all of that. I think its all common ground. It seems to me, Prime Minister you dont subscribe to the view there is a third alternative which is some form of inclusive democracy, and some of the state do that we have to choose the lesser of two evils. But let me conclude then that we are going down the road that there is a third option at the option, our option we all know that in order to be decisive, airstrikes need to act in support of credible forces on the ground. And you famously told the commons and repeated it again today, either the joint Intelligence Committee estimate that be 17,000 moderate fighters who we can support. Now, if these people are fighters, there can be little grounds for secrecy about their identity. So why wont you or the defense secretary make the supposedly moderate groups in whose name these fighters are in the field . First of all lets be clear about terminology. The figure i gave to the house of commons to stop the feature i invented. Its a big ask the jic for to give me their best estimate. The estimate was that there was 70,000 nonextremist opposition fighters in syria. The largest number of these are the Free Syrian Army and your family with. The representatives all turned up at the riyadh conference all signed up to the geneva principles that if you are arguing are all of these people impacted all democrats who would share the view of democracy that you and i have, no. Some of them do belong to Islamist Groups and some block to hard line Islamist Groups but nonetheless thats the best estimate of the people that we have potentially to work with. The reason for not breaking down in the future detail exactly who they are is simply does. We would be effectively giving president assad sortable list of the groups and the people potentially the areas that he should be targeting and thats not my approach. Surely, Prime Minister, it is being published by people supportive of your position of this which have identified well known groups of various sizes including the Free Syrian Army but does have a large number of very small and distant affiliates to it. The suspicion has to be that its, is the government willing to name the supposedly moderate groups, it becomes impossible for any sensible assessment to be made of whether they really are moderate or whether they are islamists and extreme. Reason for not publishing is, its different for other People Publishing is to the government officially publishing a list. Im being frank with you. And a debate i said people will say that are not in the opposite ground troops. I totally agree. I couldnt agree more. They are not als all sort of pee youd bump into liberal Democrat Party conference. Right, i would agree with all those assessments. But the point i would make is that because you go back to this is there a third way come is there a third way between a daesh style state and president assad, the butcher, remain in charge . There has to be a third way. We have to find a third way. It should involve of course people alawites can arezzo taken part in the state run by a socket we dont want to dismantle that. But to argue that the sunni majority in syria simply are too extreme or too hopeless or to whatever to take part in the future but it because you i think the counsel of despair went to try to find this third way. Had to be there to these opposition groups who pitched up in the in riyadh who signed up to the geneva principles is that a large number of them do want to see some form of diverse democratic regime in syria that we should be supporting. I dont think we have a lot of choice not to back that. And all the numbers, to be clear, 70,000 doesnt include the 20,000 kurdish fighters in syria. The other point id make to people who say some of the 70,000 is usha merrill, doesnt properly exist. If it doesnt exist what on earth of the 240,000 troops that assad has come to have they been fighting for the last four years . I have no doubt at all that there are large number of troops in syria who have been, i shall say fighters in syria, who have been fighting assad. The question is are they object of which is like to give you an answer that came when i asked who were the groups being [inaudible] this was a question which was answered by the defence secretary. He was asked which moderate nonIslamist Groups with credible ground forces, other than kurds, are fighting daesh in syria . He was asked about in october on the 19th. And he replied on the 26th as follows. Are a number of moderate Opposition Forces fighting assad regime. Many are also fighting isil in areas of strategic importance. For example, north of aleppo. The vast majority these opposition groups are islamists. Know, endless theres a mistake in secretary of state answer revealed what the government would go after moderate groups are actually in many cases islamist ones. Thats why i urge you again, if you want people to make an informed choice between the option of a Secular Group dictator and islamist alternative, we really out to be told more about the composition of the allegedly moderate forces that we are now melting airstrikes to support. Ive given you my aunt about what were going to publish and going to change that answer. What i would repeat again though, there is some of the Opposition Forces are islamists. Some of them are relatively hardline islamists. And some of them are more what we would describe as more secular democrats. But it would make the point that our groups like alnusra front who we dont, we would work, we would condemn. I think, but if youre arguing are not enough, we need to build about, yes, we do. Weve got to start somewhere. Thats the point. Everyday we dont support moderate forces, they are hit by assad and retreating further. You think you may be something between those huge granular details that might give assistance to assad on one income and some General Information that might give more credibility that never had to put in the Public Domain . Ive considered it but give the answer i think is appropriate. People wonder whether this is a reliable number. Well look, all i can say is, you know, we had an nfc discussion, the joint Intelligence Committee produced a figure. Jic if they said they thought 70,000 was the best estimate. The americans have said that is within their estimate. The american said it was towards the top end of their estimate. It you want to say that the jic, me or parliament [inaudible] thats one have a jic. It is set up after the iraq war for precisely this purpose so the i said its going to increase your credibility to come forward with some detail but i think it made clear you are not going to. Is it fair to say that the libyan intervention after we we into syria to be great isil at the libyan intervention has deprived the region of one of isils most ruthless opponents in gadhafi . Its certainly true that gadhafi was particular in his latter days an opponent of extremist groups like alqaeda. He worked famously with the last government towards that end. But it dont think in any way we should look back fondly to the type of gadhafi. No one is suggesting that either. Sometimes when weve lost a character there, he was an extreme and nasty piece of work. Was in the on the right side, the main reason were going into towards the end of his time in office he mightve been on the right side but we are still dealing in Northern Island with syntax given to the i. R. A. By gadhafi. So i dont look back and think that that was somehow a golden era in libyan relations. We have a problem now with a growing isil franchise in libya just as with the problem of growing isil franchises in many countries around the world. The truth is were dealing with an extremist violent ideology that is taking hold in all states that are fractured or broken or insufficient in any way. And you see that with boko haram in nigeria. Use it with alshabaab in somalia. You see it in libya. I think this points towards making sure as ban kimoon, a missile can kill [inaudible] the same way to build strong, inclusive governments that can deliver for the people. You sit on that there are lessons to be learned from these earlier interventions. In fact, he used the phrase when we have to be careful about not dismantling states and having plans for reconstruction. But also went disaster wrong in libya, didnt . We are in a terrible mess. The libyan people were given the opportunity. Gadhafi was bearing down on people in benghazi and threatening to shoot his own people like that. An International Coalition came together to protect those people and to help the libyan people who then got rid of gadhafi. They had an opportunity to build what they said they wanted. [inaudible] what im saying is that opportunity wasnt taken. A lot of assistance was offered. I took the libyan Prime Minister to Northern Ireland but the reason we can go into, it was impossible to deliver that sort of government are theres a new opportunity with a coming together of the Libyan National government to try and deliver that. But the critics of these things, the choice we made in libya partly a request by the libyans themselves was with the demise of gadhafi was not to go in heavy handed with boots on the ground and shoot and try to help them construct their cover. They said they didnt want the. They said it would be counterproductive and they believed they would be able to put together representative institutions. It was impossible despite of the help that was prospered. If we are saying these things are difficult to get by, yes, they are. Im not saying that im just saying that the american Balance Sheet doesnt look good, Prime Minister, go to engage in nationbuilding as great a pretty ground for isil. We were involved in nationbuilding the we were there to help the libyan people. We tried to do in a way that was more remote than what it happened in iraq but on this occasion clearly it didnt work. You have painted a very difficult and intractable issue of my colleagues have raised their uncle and ask you something which is within your power and you can deal with, and just say yes to both of these propositions. [laughter] because they are unlike the others that are about what you do. What id like to ask you about is the issue of targeted killing by drones which you told the house about in relation to a targeted killing by drones in syria being carried out on the 21st of august and she came to the house to tell us about it on the seventh of september. And ive got two questions about this. The first is, will you agree to the suggestion that you actually set down in writing, published the policy about targeted killing by drones . Weve had which is set in the house of commons, weve had statements from defence secretary. Weve had a number of different statements that what we havent had come and you agreed to disagree can get house of commons in september it was a new departure. It actually, we need to be clear what the legal basis is, what the operational framework is, and what this policy is. The americans have published on this. The situation is different in syria now because we voted for the use of force in syria. But at as you said at the time this could happen, the same issues could be raised in relation to somebody to be targeted to be killed in yemen or libya or some other place where someone is threatening us and we cant apprehend them. So the first thing is, this is a serious issue. You have acknowledged that. It doesnt seem too much to ask instead of us trying to piece it together ourselves by putting together what you said and secretary of state said, and, for example, our inquiry were very helpful about giving us information about operational framework. But actually that is not good enough i dont think i would like to put you that you could easily resolve this by actually having a policy which would deal, for example, amongst other things. People who are targeted to be killed by the one and, that there are people who dont want to kill on the other hand, that there seems to be a great area of people who are not the target but if they are killed thats all right, like the two other people that were killed at the time on the 21st of august. I think we should know who is in this great area. For example, we have seen daesh engaging, using young children. If there is a young child the but to of been involved in daesh videos, would they be an insensitive go with a be somebody who we would be all right to be collaterally killed during this . Sorry. Im fascinated, very interesting to idle have absolutely straightforward answer because my view is [inaudible] my argument would be, i set up you record in the house of commons the approach that we take. I explained the legal basis for the approach we take the we dont publish legal advice for wellknown reasons you will be fully with