North Korea Nuclear Stake: Engage or Contain?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: During the ongoing state of affairs in Iraq, the nuclear stalemate with North Korea often gets overlooked. To bring you up to date, a first round of six-way talks on the stalemate took place in August, and the north has said it's willing to attend another round. The discussions are aimed at persuading North Korea to halt its nuclear program. The north is believed to have one, probably two nuclear weapons already. Joining us now, the authors of a new book on the conflict. The book is called "Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies," published by Columbia University Press. The author is here in Washington, Victor Cha. He's a consultant to the Pentagon. David Kang, he's of Dartmouth College. Victor and David, thanks very much. Congratulations on the new book. Victor, I'll begin with you. What's the best way for the United States government to convince the North Korean government to forget about nuclear weapons?</s>VICTOR CHA, NORTH KOREA EXPERT: Well, I think the best way is to get every country in the region, Japan, China, South Korea, Russia, the United States all together to tell the North Koreans, you can't have nuclear weapons. You can security, you can get aid, you can get a lot of other things, but you can't continue down this nuclear path. Gong for nuclear weapons will make you less secure, not more secure.</s>BLITZER: Is that a realistic option, David?</s>DAVID KANG, NORTH KOREA EXPERT: Yes, it's a realistic option as long as the United States addresses the security concerns of North Korea. Asking North Korea to give up the weapons on the hopes that they can trust the United States is not going to work. And I think that's been shown over the last couple of years.</s>BLITZER: Didn't President Bush recently go a little bit further in trying to address those security concerns, Victor, by suggesting that the U.S. would put in writing some of those concerns?</s>CHA: I think he did. The president at the APEC leader's meeting in Asia said that the United States, in conjunction with the other countries in the region, would be interested in providing some sort of peace assurance to the north. I mean, this in many ways is calling the north's bluff. They say this is what they want, to give up their nuclear weapons. And now we'll see if they're serious.</s>BLITZER: Why should anyone believe Kim Jong-Il? He's a tyrant, he's a murderer, he's a dictator. People in North Korea are starving to death. It's a brutal regime. Why would anyone trust this guy?</s>KANG: Well, the key point is that they don't trust us any more than we trust them. And part of the kind of negotiation that's going on right now is aimed at trying to see what the North Koreans really want, as Victor said, calling their bluff, but also being able to provide something in return.</s>BLITZER: Is there a military option, a realistic, David, military option? Some hawks are suggesting, you know what, there is no way you can deal rationally with a guy like Kim Jong-Il. You've got to just deal military with him.</s>KANG: Every president comes in attempting to take a fairly hard line, realized that the costs of going to war are extremely high, and that's a risk that most U.S. presidents have not gone down that path. So people are not really that concerned that...</s>BLITZER: So is it because they're a nuclear power, even though they haven't tested formally a nuclear bomb, does mean that there really is no military option?</s>CHA: Well, I mean, I think it means there is no military option. But what's interesting about the point that you just made is that it's not the nuclear capabilities that deter us from considering a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, it's North Korea's conventional capability. They have thousands of artillery tubes deployed ready to strike on Seoul and Tokyo. So it's this conventional threat that acts as a deterrent to hostility. And if that's the case, North Korea is secure. They are secure from a threat from the United States, as they say. And therefore, one then questions why they need nuclear weapons.</s>BLITZER: The message though that is sent to tyrants around the world, David -- correct me if I'm wrong -- if you're a leader in Iran or anyplace else that's one of these so-called rogue nations, the evil empire, the axis of evil, as the president has called them, is you better hurry and develop a nuclear bomb if you want to deter the United States from actually doing to you what it did to Saddam Hussein.</s>KANG: That's one thing that I would emphasize. That in terms of the economic reforms that North Korea has been taking, it hasn't been only a purely recalcitrant regime. They've been making attempts to try and open up their economy. And in that sense, I think we should encourage those moves rather than just retard them.</s>BLITZER: Is that a realistic option?</s>CHA: I don't really know. I mean, I think in many ways this reform effort that the North Koreans are under taking is a black hole because they need to reform. They're a very close society. But as we see, history has shown the process of reform for these close societies ends up being the end of the dictatorships. And that's the reform dilemma that North Korea faces.</s>BLITZER: I've been along the DMZ, David, the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, where about 30,000 or 40,000 U.S. troops normally not that far away on the southern part. Obviously one of the most dangerous spots on Earth. But now there is word that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld wants to move those troops away from there, get them out of harm's way, if you will, whereas for 50 years they were seen as a trip wire.</s>KANG: And in fact, that concerns both the North and the South Koreans, because it's not clear what the U.S. would do then if its troops are out of harm's way.</s>BLITZER: Is that smart to get those troops away from the DMZ?</s>CHA: I think it's smart. I mean, I think in the long term it's smart for the U.S.-South Korean alliance, because South Korea is a different country from 1953. You know, the end of the Korean War. It's a democracy; it's got an educated youth. It's an OECD country. It's the 11th largest economy in the world. You can't have large foreign military bases in huge metropolises like that. They're crises just waiting to happen. So in the long term, I think this is actually...</s>BLITZER: But if the U.S. completely pulled out of South Korea, that would send shock waves I think in much of that part of the world.</s>KANG: I agree with Victor that, over time, the U.S.-Korea alliance has to be modified. I'm not so sure that we should be doing it right now while this other crisis is going on.</s>BLITZER: But one final word on Jim Jong-Il. And we've studied him, we've analyzed him. There is this notion he likes to drink Hennessey (ph) cognac and that he likes porno films. What's the truth about this guy? Is he a nut or is he someone who is rational that you can deal with?</s>CHA: Well, there is no denying he has these material pursuits of his that have to do with all sorts of strange things. But at the same time, I think our analysis has found that he is a very rational person, he's a rational leader. But just because he's rational doesn't mean that he's not dangerous. He's still very dangerous.</s>BLITZER: David, you get the last word.</s>KANG: Absolutely, I agree. He has -- like most dictators, he has a very interesting lifestyle. But does he know the kinds of decisions he's making? Yes.</s>BLITZER: An important book and one worth reading, because this is an important subject. Arguably, perhaps the most important subject out there right now in international affairs. "Nuclear North Korea: A Debate on Engagement Strategies." IT's published by Columbia University Press. Thanks very much, Victor and David.</s>CHA: Thank you.</s>KANG: Thank you. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com