Thanks, I was waiting for a high sign and we don't even need one oh, it's not it's not it's not like all that Usually you wait for the for the guy in the headset to give you it like that and you know We're a little bit less formal today. Welcome everyone. Thank you for being here To this presentation from America Abroad it's the show that brings global issues home to Americans. I'm Todd's willick host of the takeaway from public radio international and WNYC and it's a pleasure to be invited to host this panel today, and I've been excited about it as I've been preparing because The issue of North Korea is rising to the forefront of America's Americans minds these are experts here with me and and you're all well-versed in this topic, too And many Americans for the first time in a long time are starting to think a lot harder About North Korea about the potential threat and about what it means For them and everybody in Washington's thinking about it as well So I'm glad that you're here, and I'm glad to be part of this I'm joined by four panelists who bring a wide range of Perspectives on North Korea first is our host Frank on who's the US Institute of Pieces Expert focusing on Korean Peninsula issues from 2001 until this year Frank served as the senior advisor For North Korea in the office of the Secretary of Defense Welcome That's it He is he is your host after all Jean Lee is here Jean was the first American granted access to North Korea and in 2012 She became the chief of the Associated Press's Pyongyang Bureau Currently currently she's a global fellow at the Wilson Center And an AP reporter which makes you my colleague in the press, so that's a pleasure former AP reporter Anthony Ruggiero is on the end Anthony is a senior fellow at the Foundation for defensive democracies. He's a Former government expert on targeted financial measures sanctions against hostile regimes He was part of the six-party talks on denuclearization And a non-proliferation Advisor for the United States, and he's here to guide us through some of the questions of sanctions as we move forward So it's good to have you Anthony. He deserves a hand You All know Glenn Ford is who is Furthest to my right. He was a member of the European Parliament for 25 years focusing on Asia related issues He's also co-authored a book North Korea on the brink struggle for survival. Glenn. It's good to have you as well. Thank you So before we start our discussion, let's let's start with the news. It's a good place to start the latest Ballistic missile launch from the North Koreans now North Korea claims that this latest missile Flew to an altitude 10 times the height of the international space space station that might not mean much But what you need to know is that it went so very high that it can go so very far and apparently now that missile Could land on Chicago or maybe Cleveland or maybe even my hometown of Hershey, Pennsylvania If if Kim decided that was a place he wanted to hit Let's hear from UN ambassador Nikki Haley. I think we have audio We have never saw with North Korea and still today. We do not seek it if war does come It will be because of continued acts of aggression like we witnessed yesterday and if war comes Make no mistake. The North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed Eric from Nikki Haley the United States ambassador to the United Nations Frankly, let me start with you since you're our host this latest test the the latest in a long series of Ballistic missile tests that we've all watched Does it change the state of play in a fundamental way the fact that this missile now We're all aware can not only reach the west coast but the continental United States Is this just a continuation of? Of a new positioning from North Korea, or do you see something fundamentally different? Well, thank you Todd So you're right the test that North Korea conducted earlier this week is The latest version of their ballistic missile. It was the Hwasung 15. It was a very large missile had advanced second stage Capability and it can pretty much defective range was 8,000 miles so that can cover all the United States now I wouldn't call it a necessarily a fundamental shift in a technical capability sense We knew that this test is coming. They've conducted similar tests before in July to ICBM tests If there's if there's a fundamental shift, I would say it's more it could potentially be more in their political posture because Kim Jong-un has said before that he wants to simultaneously develop the nuclear weapons program as well as the economy and Now with this test. He stated that North Korea has finalized the nuclear weapons force so we may be looking for a shift in North Korea's regime towards more economic development. We may even see a pivot to an opening and engagement One bit of speculation or analysis that I've heard is this dual track right developing weapons developing the economy Suggesting that Kim is looking for space now now that he's proven He has this capability back off leave me alone Let me restructure my economy without interference from the Americans or from the South Koreans indeed Oh, do you do you buy that sort of strategic take? That's what he said since he's Implemented that it's called the pyeongjin line the dual track development of the nuclear weapons and economy He said that I think at least since 2013 We'll see it remains to be seen in the upcoming months whether that That policy will move forward now that he's secured his nuclear weapons one of the features of This show is input from people around the world and from listeners and viewers So I want to play I think this is a video clip now This is coming from jihun hwang who's a student at hand cook academy of foreign relations in South Korea Let's play this clip. This is probably in Korean. So for the benefit of some of you I'm gonna translate after a minute here They eat that and I'm Trump's 대통령 he has it Says I want to learn more about the specific ideologies that President Trump might have since the nuclear issue is a problem for the entire world We must understand each country's policy and then she asks if she has a message for President Trump and her responses Please study the history using Twitter does not mean you were communicating with the people What's to talk about? Anyone want to talk about Twitter Hanago I'm gonna go to you. We'll talk about more of the substance But I want you to talk about Twitter for a moment because because this is a very new way of communicating on the world stage Do you have a sense of?  Is it just part of the background or is it important? No, no, they certainly talk about them I was in Pyongyang last week Talking to people in the Korean Workers Party and they talk about Trump's Twitter feed, but of course being British. I'm also aware of some of his more recent endeavors on Twitter So after that one one really wonders having I do Having retweeted some of the most vile and Material from the extreme neo-nazis right in Britain Which is actually a false video seems to be it wouldn't encourage the North Koreans very much I mean his recent contribution this morning on on Twitter with respect to North Korea was less than fully helpful In the sense that one's got to understand that for the North Koreans like it or not. I mean Kim Jong-un is almost a god and If you're insulting if you're insulting him, it makes it very difficult to get to come to the table They're quite willing to put up with if you want Insults or or threats are being wiped out. I mean that that's fine They understand that but actually going to the extent of if you want less a machete Is it is a step too far?  Is it just a small handful of elites? Oh, yeah. Yeah, I mean I mean the people who matter at the top they Well, they get a daily They get an equivalent of reference news which is a daily compilation of world news Which clean even if they're not seeing Twitter itself is it's being covered. I mean part of the problem is that They have all the information but they don't understand what it means necessarily I mean they can talk about local election results in France or or whatever, but Necessarily capable of understanding and one of the problems they have with the United States It's a very different system from their own and they they don't understand checks and balances And they don't understand that people in the same administration are actually saying different things at the same time Jean-ly let me go to you and talk a little bit more deeply about American strategy it's clear or it seems clear that the Trump administration has abandoned Strategic patients the doctrine of the Obama administration before it or have they I mean they've they've gone to great lengths to rhetorically Abandon strategic patients, but have you noticed a substantive difference a substantive shift in strategy or even tactics aside from the Twitter feed From this administration then from the one or the two before it well, let's talk about that Twitter feed I will answer that right because one of the differences we're seeing in terms of Obama era policy and strategic patients versus the Trump Twitter feed is the rhetoric and The rhetoric coming from the Twitter feed is not only confusing to the North Koreans Also confusing to the South Koreans because it doesn't jive with the policy that his Secretary of State is putting out there when it Comes to dealing with North Korea the rhetoric part of the strategy of strategic patients was It's kind of like when you have a naughty child There's a there's a theory that perhaps you shouldn't give that child the attention that child is craving right put it in the naughty corner but Part of that policy was to kind of ignore the provocations and not to kind of feed it but what we're getting with these these really kind of Crazy tweets from the President's feed is a rise in this war of words between North Korea and the United States and Certainly what I think people in South Korea are worried about is if both of these Leaders raise the rhetoric to the point where they can't back down is not going to lead the region into some sort of a conflict So it's very confusing for people in South Korea. I have to say not to mention Those of us here in the u.s. And the North Koreans I have to remind you that we have a State of an armistice and a ceasefire in place on the Korean Peninsula So militarily we were limited to a certain degree if we abide by that armistice North Korea knows that and is really trying to push things just up to the limit but Donald trump the president can threaten only wants in his rhetoric But there is a limit to a certain degree if you're going to follow the code of conduct To what you can do in terms of military action, of course, they can go ahead and do it but uh, there There is a an armistice or a ceasefire that has been in place since 1953 So it's something to keep in mind We're going to talk a little bit more about military options such as they are a little bit later in the program Anthony Ruggiero sticking on the twitter theme for one moment another feature of the president's twitter feed when it comes to the north is pushing the chinese and Sometimes encouraging them sometimes praising them sometimes insulting them as well Trying to get them to ratchet up and crack down on their client state north korea somewhat of a client Is that effective not just on twitter, but maybe using real diplomacy? How far has the trump administration got gotten? On there with their calls to the chinese government to to get tough on north korea from their end Right, you know when you ask the question about Comparing the trump administration policy and the obama administration policy of strategic patients You know the relationship with china I think is the the the biggest example of the difference I mean this is the first administration that has really gone after china with sanctions For their facilitation of north korea's sanctions evasion, you know, uh, there are there are many times they've gone after one chinese bank They've gone after many Numerous chinese nationals I think you know the interesting part of you know to your point about public talking about how the she and trump have a close relationship But it's clear and private that there's a tough message being delivered because in the For the trump's trip to beijing He was very public in his praise for president she and then only a few weeks later He comes back and there are you know strong sanctions against chinese entities I would also come back if I can come back for a second back to the question of You know does this missile test mean now we're moving forward on diplomacy or is this a sign You know i have to i have to caution first of all that we saw Larger missile systems in the april parade. So this is not the end of north korea's missile program It's not the end of north korea's dangerous missile program There are probably larger missiles that they're working on now and I remember it was only monday The day before the test where people were saying that this 70 day pause in testing was an an opportunity for negotiations And that's not true What we now learned is that north korea was using that 70 day window to build a lot bigger missile to reach the united state So I think we have to be very careful About suggesting that the north koreans are on all of a sudden throw up their hands and say Okay, now let's have a negotiation. They're only going to want it on their terms and it's not going to be on denuclearization terms What's changed is that At least after this missile test The north koreans or kim jong-un has actually said they're at the end of their program I mean in a sense if they retest in the near future That's a loss of faith for him. He said it's complete. So it seems to me that We're in a much better position than we've we've been in the past. I mean I have to say Barack Obama described his policy as strategic patience and I term it malign neglect I mean the the sanctions were on and they were squeezing north korea So it it wasn't uh, it wasn't a benign operation by any means I think the key thing to realize is that the administration completely must understand China's influence makes work frankly On the economy china has some has some ability to hurt north korea But of course, he doesn't want to collapse the state. The last thing he wants is us troops on the southern bank of the yellow river political terms or north korean refugees pouring into china Well, I'm I'm pouring into south korea. I mean There'll be 10 million in south korean 2 million in china So, uh, I mean the people who've got the big problem are in the south But the point being that china's got almost no political influence over north korea I mean they refused the foreign minister who wanted to come about six weeks ago So this notion that some people still have that sort of the side the north korean, you know workers party is Some kind of subsidiary of Of the beijing the chinese communist party is complete nonsense and the sooner people learn that the better Because at the moment he's pushing on the lever with no fulcrum All right, I do want to stick on china For the next part of our discussion between you wanted to add something about missiles I just wanted to uh Mention that I read the statement about completion of the testing or the program a little bit differently I read them as saying that we've begun the final process of completing this This nuclear weaponry Which I read to me that actually they acknowledged that they have a couple more tests They may need to conduct so I think we can't relax quite yet And I think that experts might agree that they have to master re-entry So there are a couple different components before they actually have a weapon system that can truly threaten us That said I think every single test is very dangerous for other reasons But I just I think that we should keep in mind too that it might be some political posturing kim jong-un did say on the On january 1st on new year's day. He said i'm going to complete this by the end of the year So he had to show his people that he had this timeline and it was going to complete it And also I just want to point out I had expected a test I know everybody was saying what is up with this 75 day lull But I had been expecting one in december because the times that I've been in north korean december under kim jong-un This has been a time for testing because december is the month that his father kim jong-un passed away So was there a couple different domestic reasons for why kim jong-un Wanted to test this missile. What better way to honor your relatives, yeah Frank you wanted to add something Yeah, so china doesn't have as much political influence as on north korea as people say but they do have the leverage and so it's just basically a reiteration of anthony's point that china has increased the enforcement of the sanctions and we're seeing that a lot over the last Six to eight months. No, I want that's good because I do want to stay with china because we have another contributor from china This is yitao wang an office worker in shanghai. She has this message for president trump Let's watch the clip and i'm going to use my abilities of for translation yet again He says learn from our president she things like one belt one road the silk road peaceful development shared prosperity Being the only powerful country is in fun. Look at china and russia. We're on great terms Why do you have to do what you've been doing? Everyone should participate. You should not dominate the game all by yourself I think that most chinese people share this Anthony president trump may agree With uh yitao yang here here the us has been trying to deal china further into this process right then probably Many officials in china want china is split on how far to go In pushing on the north koreans. Isn't that right when when you look at the chinese options for sanctions Well, you know the chinese leadership faces a difficult decision, uh, you know, they Uh, the north koreans, uh, they learned in 2005 when the united states sanctioned Banco delta asia a bank in macau that they should not have all of their operations in one place And so while they do have a majority of their operations in one country, they have it's diverse Uh, and the question for the chinese leadership is how long are they going to look the other way? and I think that Uh, I agree with what the other panelists have said is that china has very little political leverage But with the amount of trade that they have with north korea It's hard to claim as the chinese continue to do that they have really no leverage with north korea It's clear that they have leverage with north korea I mean the issue here is really going to come down to The united states is going to have to use its own sanctions against china to get them to act And we don't have a lot of examples of it because as I said, there haven't been a lot of examples Of the us sanctioning china But in some of the cases where the us has acted first The chinese have followed that with investigations and looking into the activities and and we're going to have to see more of that I don't think the chinese are ready to do that on its own on their own nationals But we have to get to that point. I'm going to take this opportunity to own and trademark the phrase domino sanctions That's what you're talking about is us leaning on china with sanctions so that china turns around and leans on on the north Right. I mean the issue here is that the chinese are willing to as I like to say nimble around the edges a little bit And target north koreans that are engaged in these activities And certainly there are north koreans engaged in these activities. I don't want to suggest that or not, but there are far more chinese companies and nationals And banks that are engaged in this activity with north korea And the question we all have to ask ourselves is the un is not going to Chinese are not going to allow the un to sanction chinese persons So it's really left to the united states and you know just a part of history since i worked on iran sanctions as well Exactly what we did on iran sanctions. I mean the united states A majority of the sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table were not un sanctions They were us sanctions that were implemented by the united states in a group of like-minded countries And that's probably what it's going to come down to with uh with north korea And the question is going to be is china going to be the one that's sanctioned or is are they going to be the one That help implement those sanctions. Well sanctions are What's the purpose of sanctions Because they're not stopping north korea developing nuclear weapons And there's no prospect that the sanctions that you've got now will actually stop that process happening So what what are they there for? Well, I mean i've i've written Extensively on this since i've left the u.s. Government. Uh, it's pretty clear, you know If you look at the numbers just even back to february 2016 looking at u.s. Sanctions alone north korea was eighth In country sanctions programs and that was before you know, it had done numerous Nuclear tests and missile tests. It was behind such You know large threats to the united states as zimbabwe and the Balkans And other countries that certainly were not as much of a threat to the united states as north korea was at that time I understand the argument for sanctions But the sanctions were supposed to stop north korea becoming a nuclear weapons power Capable of hitting the united states now. It's very clear that the sanctions you have now will not stop that happening I mean cia assessment says the capability of hitting the united states with a nuclear weapon within three months Now you really think sanctions are going to work in the next eight weeks Well, I mean that's your I mean that's your opinion I think I would say the goal of sanctions is denuclearization of north korea through negotiations And I I will also use the iran example again. I remember very clearly That people said then iran would never return to the negotiating table They said that you could never go after iran's oil revenue. That would be a third rail And and other things like that The north koreans have not yet felt What it is like to have the united states government use iran style sanctions on them And you know who knows that the chinese know that and so I think the clear issue here is will the north korean regime the elites the military and the weapons programs Be able to continue to get revenue When chinese banks are sanctioned and they're not able to process those transactions for them All right, so anthony you you're making the argument I'm glad you did because I was going to ask you about this Anyway, that there is a lot of room left to squeeze that the sanctions are not nearly done if we want to ratchet them down more We're coming up on a break soon And this gives me an opportunity because sanctions are a two-way street You can be the sanctioner, but the sanctionee Is part of this equation as well I'd like to get maybe a minute or 90 seconds from each of you and we can go down the line glenn we can start with you What you think north korea Wants from this entire confrontation. Do they want out from under sanctions? Do they want room to rebuild the economy? Do they just want to be tough? They won't start there. What do they want regime survival? And they see two elements to regime survival firstly They need a nuclear deterrent they're not capable of competing with the united states On conventional weapons. They're out spent by a factor of 50 with the united states japan and And south korea and then they want to develop the economy They're going to they have to develop the economy so the people that matter the two billion people in in pyongyang ACC rising standards of living and preferably the rest of the country as well But they're the key people so that's what it's about regime survival. You agree right? I do and I don't have anything to add on that point But I do want to reiterate that the us intelligence community assesses that there's no amount of pressure That would get kim jong-un to give up his nuclear weapons senator corker admitted as much in a new a meet the press interview a couple months ago um, so I think The question is and and advocates of sanctions will say that we now have a A tougher set of sanctions right now, but it takes a certain amount of time three years four years And that may be the case the question is do we have the time to wait for the sanctions to kick in? I would agree. We don't have time. It takes a couple years before sanctions really truly bite Of course a lot of that is enforcement of sanctions And it'll take some time to make sure that all the countries are enforcing them I do think and I can tell you I was there I was in north korea earlier this year and the people that I worked with were very concerned about a fuel embargo from china And so that is one area and I can guarantee you that the u.s. Mission to the united nations is working on trying to convince Their partners on the u.n. Security council to agree to that that will uh, that will affect the the daily lives of Frank I have a feeling that you would agree that a fuel embargo would probably go a long way um And a more complete embargo on north korea since you're looking for a ron style sanctions But what do you think the north wants from this from this entire this entire confrontation? Sure. I mean, I think north korea wants a Unified korean peninsula under the rule of the north korean regime I think that's pretty much their their long-term goal I think you know just broadly on sanctions I'm sure we'll discuss this later But I'd be very interested to hear the other alternatives because to me With a country that has violated almost every Negotiated settlement that we've had with them with them and i'm not advocating for sanctions on its own That i'm interested in in what the other panelists. I'm sure we'll get into it later See as an alternative to sanctions sanctions only take as long as we are willing to implement them I think the trump administration has made significant strides over the last 10 months But you know, I think that the intelligence assessment is interesting, but Perhaps we'll see what happens moving forward Before we come right upon the break, which is in just a minute. I want to do Post prerogative again frank since you're our host Get you to talk about your neighbors a little bit. We're right across the street from the state department here in foggy bottom There's some rex tillerson news happening. Nobody's noticed because there's so much else going on in washington today um It would appear in trump administration fashion that the secretary of state is on the way out When you look at american diplomacy with the south with china with north korea such as it is even though the president said rex tillerson was Wasting his time trying to talk to the north koreans Is this shake-up that we're in for disruptive or does it not matter at all? Well, it's it's hard to comment on something that hasn't happened yet, but I would say that um so one of the issues with The current policy is that I think the trump administration has been very clear about what they're trying to do They're trying to maximize pressure against north korea. They want to isolate north korea They want to cut it off from the international financial system that part is very clear I think what's not clear is and very model is how they message Their openness to engagement So for example, president trump will say that he's willing to meet with kim jong-in and have talks And then later he'll tweet that talks are a waste of time And I think also in between between what president trump says and what his senior officials say It hasn't been a lot of consistency. So I think if you have a new secretary of state I think the the name out there right now is uh, the cia director by pompeo If he's more aligned with president trump, at least you'll have some better consistency in the messaging In the messaging if he's more aligned with president trump, does that mean More actual pressures. Is there anything practical that goes on in the diplomacy end if you get rid of this? This sort of separation of vision between tillerson and trump that that we've been told exists if they become more aligned what happens Well, I think uh, so the the way president trump articulated the strategy initially back in may after the review was That it was a strategy of maximum pressure and engagement But I feel like the engagement part sort of fell off and people didn't understand what engagement meant because there didn't seem to be any efforts on engagement But what I how I interpret engagement from the administration is that they're engaging Uh diplomatically to put pressure on other countries to enforce sanctions. So that's one One definition of engagement. That's not engagement. That's not engagement I think that's how that's probably one plausible way that they're defining it and that would be consistent with trump's message All right, we're gonna take a short break now So everybody can take a sip of water and we can reset and when we come back We're going to talk about whether this whole situation actually has us closer to Nuclear war which is really the question behind all of this whether it's likely or not And we're also going to hear from some people who've been through it. Stay with us Everyone it's good to have you with us. Thanks for you're all getting settled there Welcome back. It's good to have you all with us. It's been 72 years since the world has seen the destruction caused By nuclear weapons most people have no real sense of what a nuclear bomb means But terumi tenaka does have a sense He was 13 years old and living in nagasaki when the united states dropped the atomic bomb on his city He lived about two miles from ground zero and somehow Survived even though the bomb devastated his neighborhood. That's just amazing two days later He and his mother visited the epicenter searching for their family members who live nearby Here's how he described the scene this clip is in japanese. So i'm going to translate this one as well He says houses were gone only the steel bars of concrete buildings could bear and hollow Steel bars of factories were entirely bent everything else was a burnt field On the way to my aunt's house, we saw black and bodies all over the place Probably burned underneath houses that burned down People who died from severe injuries and burns and were left on the ground without being collected Those who were gravely injured and alive were left to ride in pain Without rescue Today mr. Tenaka is a nuclear engineer himself and he's an activist against nuclear weapons As he told us he feels things are going in the wrong direction. Listen So he says further there. It's especially disconcerting that the current japanese government is actively feeding the military threat The united states and japan claim that north korea is provoking But the united states has come all the way over to do military exercise in close proximity to north korea So it appears to me rather that it's the united states that is provoking more I want the united states to stop provoking instead work to create the conditions to make dialogue possible Uh glenn ford. I think that a lot of people in japan might feel differently from mr. Tenaka there. They've seen North korean missiles flying over their territory. There have been air raid drills. Where else could they go? Where else?  They've had air raid sirens going off in exercises What do you make of what mr. Tenaka has to say about? I have a lot of sympathy with mr. Tenaka I mean why have they got air raid sirens going off just because abbey wants to get rid of article nine of the constitution And the only way to do that is to frighten the japanese people Which is why japan is not interested in a settlement of the uh of the north korean situation Because that means he'd lose his referendum Even with the north korean threat the latest opinion polls put him six percent behind and he's going to call a referendum So japan's interest is to actually make every phone ring every time there's a north korean missile within a thousand miles So and if you look at if you want to launch a medium-range missile, there's no other direction to go So you think that the government in japan has has a stake in alarmism here? Absolutely. I mean, I mean they're the ones that wreck the six party talks I mean, I understand I have a great ill of sympathy with the issue of the abductees But because of the abduct the issue they refuse to agree anything Which is why the north koreans walked away and why the north koreans have Refused consistently to go back to the six party talks because they they weren't a venue that was going to get anywhere um frank is a Is the experience in japan with american nuclear weapons as part of their culture now obviously does that experience and the nightmare of it Feed into the into the modern japanese approach to north korea and the potential threat That they represent Well, I think um the threat has always been there. So north korea has had nuclear weapons for at least 10 years since 2006 so The nuclear shadow has been there over south korea. It's been there over japan um And now with uh the long range test. It's it's growing appreciably uh in the united states But I would add that You know, it's one thing to have the capability doesn't mean they're going to use it And so I think north korea is not suicidal They know that if they were to ever attack the united states or its allies Um that we would respond with overwhelming force and that means the destruction of the company of the country I think uh really the concern is that sometimes we tend to Uh nitpick north korea's tests will say oh, they didn't achieve this They didn't they didn't demonstrate a reentry vehicle And so what north korea may do is that they want to prove beyond any doubt that they have this capability So the concern is that they would demonstrate a missile test with a live warhead with a that does an atmospheric Demonstration over international waters and that would be a game changer for us. I think another Uh concern for us is that north korea may now mistakenly believe that they Have a nuclear weapon capability so they can keep the the us aside and they can run a muck And core south korea And and do a lot of provocations for their purposes Well, we started with japan and let's go to south korea now because we have another contributor That I want to help drive our discussion here. This is yonsei. Uh, no, this is uh, pardon me This is yunje kim from the yonsei university in Seoul who has a clip here and i'm i'm gonna translate this one as well Oh, it's oh good. I don't have to translate this one. I can give my translate into korean give my korean arrest. Yes Oh japanese well, I guess the first thing that i would like to know is Why is the us so afraid of north korea? Like north korea has a very tiny army Even if it gets icbms, which is which is which it is working its way towards like north america still has a qualitative and quantitative military edge Both in both in conventional and nuclear capabilities And so the north koreans know that if they do anything That if this escalates to an actual conflict with america, I mean they will Like they will just definitively loose. So why is the us making such a big deal of north korea? Jean lee we've had a lot of analysts and experts and journalists maybe even you on the takeaway on my show Um explaining that south koreans tend to be much less excited about the north korean threat than americans are Is that true? It is true to a certain degree. I mean south koreans have been living with this threat for decades now And they have to go about their daily lives. Remember that they are they are living in a country that is extremely competitive They have everyday concerns that they're much more concerned about I remember uh as a child when I was visiting south korea as we used to have these Regular civil air raid drills at i think they're at 2 p.m. And you have to pull by Pull your car over to the side of the road Take cover Frankly, I think people don't even stop what they're doing right now They're so oblivious to some of these threats from north korea that said things are a little bit different right now I think the uncertainty in the the lack of clarity In terms of what president trump might do has unnerved some south koreans And um also what's interesting is there's a growing call in south korea among some parts of the population For south korea to arm itself. I think it's kind of reflected in what the student was saying Some people are calling for their own for to have nuclear weapons reintroduced to the korean peninsula So this is a really interesting development that I see happening in south korea Frank you you have experience in the diplomatic world and we're talking about the potential for military confrontations and how these societies View the threat culturally you've been around the negotiating table Um How does the actual threat of violence the actual threat of war if there is such a threat really inform how these discussions You were at the six party talks. Those are defunct. There may be talks in the future. How does that? Uh, how does that inform how talks proceed? Well, this is I mean this is really the debate over whether we could have a policy of deterrence You know, I think the student's question is a good one of I think it's and I think frank mentioned this as well That, you know, of course, north korea is not suicidal. I don't think any of us think that I think that north korea sees its ICBMs and nuclear weapons programs as a way to prevent the united states for from coming to south korea's aid And probably protecting japan as well. And so the question here that You know one that I think people have been struggling with and is can you can you deter north korea? You know, can we the A possible policy solution can it just be let's just not give them all this credit and attention for these Provocations and let's just say You know you do whatever you want inside, but you can't attack the united states or south korea japan I would say of course we can deter north korea from those Military strikes, but the problem with that is a policy and that's that gets to the student's question is You can't really use that as a policy to deter north korea from proliferation For example, north korea built a nuclear reactor in syria that was destroyed by israel in 2007 If our policy is similar to strategic patients and just saying let's not let's not worry about this We can of course deter north korea. Let's focus on something else, especially something else with china, right? Then are we prepared to have a new on north korea nuclear weapons program and an icbm program? That it will sell to anyone who is willing to pay for that And that's really the crux of the policy debate with north korea, which is You can have deterrence as an element of that policy But what is the other part of that policy and that's and that's where I think we get into the Debate of sanctions versus diplomacy. I just want to make one last point is that A couple of times panelists up here have noted You know, it seems like the us and the japan are not interested in settling It's interesting that that question really needs to be on the other side. Is north korea really interested in settling I mean ambassador joe yoon who's the special representative for north korea policy for the us Has been trying I think to get the north koreans to respond and his Latest response said there's no signal from north korea So if you want to have negotiations as they say it takes two to tango, right? And if the north koreans are not interested in negotiations, you know, where does that leave us? We can't just you know show up to bei jing in the dai tai state house where the the six party talks were before And sit at the plenary table and say, okay. We're ready for six party talks. It doesn't work that way So the north koreans have shown no interest in denuclearization talks Well, I think they they haven't responded that doesn't mean that they're not interested I think they eventually do want to get to the negotiating table But they they're doing it on their own timeline They want to get their nuclear weapons program to a point where they can sit at the table as peers or that's what they're thinking Right. I mean, I guess I would say that's the danger there I mean, I think I think madame che was very clear in russia that she sees this or north korea sees this as an arms control Negotiation as a a discussion amongst nuclear peers with north korea replacing the ussr in those negotiations And that is plainly unacceptable for the united states I would argue it should be unacceptable for everyone that we would suggest that we would accept north korea as a nuclear power As an end goal.  I want the north korea deal I want the deal where I and tehran can get a nuclear weapon So we have to be careful about the precedents that we're willing to set here with regard to global non-proliferation One moment in just a few minutes. I want to tell our our audience here at the institute for peace We're going to open it up to q and a from all of you that's coming up in about 10 or 12 minutes And i'm telling you now so that you can get the juices flowing start to think about your questions You know all of the different areas of expertise that these panelists are bringing to bear So start to think about your questions because in a few minutes the mic is going out into the audience So I I leave you with that Hi, you're saying you shouldn't set a precedent with north korea But you've set a precedent with israel you've set a precedent with india you've set a precedent with pakistan I mean the world's most proliferate proliferators whether pakistan is with a q khan Hawking his His gas centrifuges around the world where were the sanctions against pakistan? Where were the threats to pakistan? Where were the negotiations? No, it was fine That was fine north korea. Oh, no They're they're a big problem. So I mean from the north korea perspective. It's the us It's you know, it's not being it's changing the rules of game halfway through Frank you're the one around this table who's worked at the pentagon and you don't have a uniform on but you've worked over there The other inevitable part of this discussion is military action from the united states and its allies I had admiral mike mullen on our show a couple of months ago former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff And I asked him if when he looks at the big map and looks at the military options inside the pentagon As they relate to north korea if any of those options are good He said none of them were good. That was his short answer. There was a longer one But I think that you probably have some thoughts on viable Military options if any really exist is there anything the united states can do failing diplomacy here to really brush back the north korean nuclear and missile program well, i'm not gonna Uh Object to what admiral mullen said That's my first point. There's certainly military options. I wouldn't call them viable military options because They all entail significant loss of life So there is a recent congressional research service day that came out that said even in a conventional conflict Within the first few days you would have anywhere from from 30,000 to 300,000 deaths And then obviously those numbers go up exponentially when you have nuclear weapons involved so That being said, uh, there's other things you can do militarily that may not be escalate escalatory enough that would Put us in a conflict It's hard to think a lot of what those are because I think if you have a kinetic action that Strikes even say one missile facility, you know that north korea will spawn because based on history When they're pressured, they don't wilt. They don't they certainly persevere They almost always fight back or tell you right? I mean there there it sounds Strange and it sounded strange to me the first time I read about this that there is a language of military You call it kinetic action. I like that that that phrase they use over at the pentagon You have the option of a devastating strike that hits pyongyang or You can send two cruise missiles to one site and those two things say Different things to the to the victim, right? Just a pinprick strike says we're not going to wipe you out We're just sending a message so interpret that as message sent Did that type of language work with the north koreans? The north koreans Have to interpret what's happening And there is a danger that they misinterpret What's actually happening? That's the first problem because they're acutely aware from studying the iraq war and And the rest that they literally have minutes to make a decision So let's hope that they appreciate the distinction between two missiles landing somewhere and a fully fledged assault So that's that that's the first problem you actually face and secondly, yeah, there are talks about pinprick strikes There's talk about if you want shooting down a missile in flight You might get away with that because kim jong-un and actually say that's uh, that was a missile failure You strike or I'm disappearing a submarine Fine or hitting a tl on the ground I mean He's not going to survive very long with his own administration Yeah, this is not a man on his own His military agree with what he's doing as well So, I mean, he's not going to survive if he doesn't fight back How about bringing down a computer network with some very creative worms and viruses? I think I've seen that I mean, hang on. I mean the us is doing that I mean, why do you think the missiles are failing? I mean the north koreans woke up to that and rewired their whole the whole missile systems or Whatever and they started to work. So I mean I They also read the newspapers about what the israelis and the americans were doing in iran. So fine. I mean Yeah, that's that's going on. I I think that would work But it's it's not a very computer-oriented society. It's not quite like, you know It's not quite like the states or or europe They can get by without computers probably better than anybody else can gene Let's get back to kinetics for a second because the united states Has thousands of troops In south korea huddled on a couple of bases as I understand it within range of north korean artillery So so we have to think two or three times about the ramifications of even a pinpick strike The united states has 28 000 troops in south korea and in the region 80 000 troops and we have a we have 200 000 americans in that part of the world so This is there are huge risks to any kind of kinetic action I don't even know what kinetic action means, but there are huge risks to any kind of action that could Spark or trigger a military conflict not just to the korean people or the japanese But two americans as well. I think when I hear the words military options We do hear the president threatening In very vague terms that he's going to do something he's going to handle it But to me military options usually means we're going to the americans are going to remind North korea that they have some powerful Tools in the regions a powerful force in the region nuclear operated Weaponry that they could unleash if they wanted to So and also remember that they carry out joint military drills Exercises twice a year with south korea the north koreans see this as provocative and they consider it a rehearsal for an invasion I think this is something that's really dangerous right now because we have Just to remind you that there's a winter olympics coming up in south korea in february So this is something certainly on the mind of the south koreans The americans and the south koreans have a joint military exercise that's going to overlap With part of the olympics and the paralympics and so this is a huge concern as well because that's always The start of this cycle of tension In on the korean peninsula so that's but that's also another sort of military option is these joint military exercises Not sure i answered your question, but i know no i you did after a fashion because i know you The whole idea of kinetics is is weird to you and it is to me a little bit too Um, let me go to one more video clip This one is from shanghai from an office worker in shanghai china who asks not to be identified I'm not sure if i'm translating this one or if it's translated, but i guess we'll find out this is If u.s. Would ever consult south korea or solicit a help from Solicit help from south korea or china and what if they they don't help or they don't want to be engaged I want to be engaged what would u.s. Proceed jean Interesting she wants to know if the u.s. Would engage help with south korea or with china It's it's actually a good question Former ambassador ambassador christ hilf was on our show just the other day Former ambassador leader of the six party talks where you were anthony He said that one of the motivations he saw on the part of the north right now is to drive a wedge Between the united states and south korea that that these increasingly sophisticated missile tests are designed to divide the united states away from Its allied relationship with the south. What do you think about that? Absolutely You know one of the major concerns in soul right now is something with something they call korea passing There's a little bit of a conglushy phrase But it's the concern or fear that they're being bypassed And that the us and north korea are in the middle of some sort of Move toward bilateral discussions that won't involve south korea south korea wants to be part of this discussion They are really the ones whose lives are at stake here So they're desperately trying to make sure that they are at that table and at those part of those discussions We've got kind of an ideological difference between the current president of south korea and The president of the united states the president of south korea comes from his parents were born in north korea So they were refugees from north korea. Um, he has a much more of a holistic I think sense of the korean peninsula He sees he's concerned about the future of the north korean people as well So he doesn't want the obliteration of either south korea or north korea. Um, it's a little bit at odds. I think Of course right now. He is very angry about the provocations, especially women olympics coming up So he is trying to be tough, but he does eventually want engagement So there's a little bit of a difference in policy and approach between the us and south korea But he also wants to be at those discussions Does not want north korea to create a situation where The north koreans are only talking to the united states or the united states is only talking to north korea and not including soul anthony, do you see the united states vulnerable to A play if you like from pyongyang to divide us away from our allies from the south koreans Well, you know, I I guess that's the part that surprises me the most I would say that uh kim jong-il was very good at at doing that and very strategic His father very strategic in Getting incentives for giving up his programs. And of course, we all know that he didn't give up his programs. That's pretty obvious I was surprised with the election of south korean president moon jay in that Kim jong-un didn't make an overture toward south korea To divide south korea from the united states. It doesn't seem like that has happened yet Certainly could be something that he winds up doing I think that Unfortunately, I think jean's right that of course. She's right that Moon jay in would prefer to have a different North korea policy than he has currently his his north korea policy and for I think in his view Unfortunately is aligned with the tougher policy that the united states wants now whether it's deploying that or making statements about stronger sanctions I think he would much prefer Talks about reopening k-song industrial complex the north south Industrial complex and we can talk about how that violates sanctions, but that's for another day I think we'd much prefer, you know a trip to pyeongyang and a conversation and talking about the olympics and having You know ceremonies associated with that, but he can't do any of that. That's what he ran on and he cannot do that That's that's what surprises me, you know that that kim jong-un has not taken that opportunity Having that administration in south korea to really drive a wedge Between the united states and south korea hasn't done it yet, but maybe he will frank is Kim aware that the united states does not have an ambassador in Seoul right now because he might have an opening here If he wants to so so this kind of dissension that he has an opportunity to do so We don't we don't have a top person there Right. We don't we don't have an ambassador to south korea. Um I do think that that point is Maybe a little bit exaggerated because we have Definitely a strong cohort of career officials at the state department that do their jobs very well, but it just it reflects Concern amongst people in south korea and in the region about the the lack of attention given the diplomacy I don't think you're short of people giving sensible advice in south korea. You've got general vinson brooks So I think he's an exceptionally good man So I wouldn't worry too much about whether victor charles going to arrive in In Seoul any day soon I mean, that's not a problem. I mean, I think what's interesting, of course is clearly kim jong-un is not trying to divide If you want south korea from the united states because he's he's not made the kind of offers that you'd expect him to make so Clearly that's not one of his aims Um What would you expect him to do if that were one of his aims? What would be his what would be his best play now? If he were trying to drive that wedge, which a lot of people expect I I mean, I don't think he's he's terribly interested at the moment I mean he was probably interested back in july when he thought that there could be a difference But then moon j in made the made the decision that he couldn't afford to be further than lips and teeth away from trump because the danger was that you That south korea was going to be left out of the decision making loop and that was going to be bad news for south korea And I fully agree that I mean the south koreans don't trust president trump So in the short term they're going to cleave to him as As closely as possible in in the medium term. They're seriously talking not about us nuclear weapons But they're developing their own nuclear deterrent because they don't trust the united states or maybe rightly Who actually trade washington brazil? So On that basis they're going to be looking after their own interests So the one thing we might see out of this because if south korea goes new clear japan will will follow within 15 minutes And yeah, we're going to get a whole new environment there But I think that's what the situation is The north koreans realize To resolve their dilemma. They have to talk to the united states. Nobody else really matters in the end So that's the solution. Oh, there's a bit of peripheral work with the south with The people are going to be paying the bills because Donald trump was not going to ask congress to pay any bills for north korean, even if he did he wouldn't get it So it's going to be the south koreans doing the heavy lifting with maybe some assistance from china european union And possibly in uh, it depends how long it takes japan All right, just uh one or two minutes left before we go to our final break and then on to questions from our Distinguished audience here We've talked a lot about sticks. We've talked a lot about sanctions. We've talked a lot about ratcheting down Let's give a moment of lip service to carrots. Shall we anthony? You're the you're the sanctions man Talk about carrots for a moment. It may only take you a minute What positive motivation do we have to offer the north right now and should we? Well, sure. I mean I I'm probably the rare person that talks about sanctions that thinks we should be we should be talking in north korea directly Now I distinguish between talks and negotiations I think that it's valuable to talk to north korea directly I'm going to avoid listing out carrots because I would say my criticism of our negotiation strategy is that We would negotiate for both sides in other words We determine what we want from north korea denuclearization and how we get to that point and then we determine You know what we're going to tell north korea. We're willing to give them in order to achieve that goal You know, it's north korea that should tell us what they need from us in a negotiated settlement Uh, we shouldn't be coming to the table with a list of here are the number of sanctions We can release here's the amount of heavy fuel oil We could give you these are just past incentives that we've given them and I would just say My final point will be that is the one area that we're not talking a lot about What would be the negotiation strategy in a renewed six-party talks because remember 2005 six-party talks genuine statement says no nuclear program No nuclear weapons for north korea. That's certainly not what the iran deal negotiated, right?  Upfront the flaw in the negotiations in the 2000s and in 19 the 1990s was that we accepted this long drawn-out Negotiations that in the end did not lead us to denuclearization Anthony, I think there might be a book in your future on the fine art of making deals I think there's a market for that Has it I wasn't sure um gene carrot So one I just want to follow up on something you mentioned which was yeah I agree that if we're going to figure out what it is they want We also have to understand who they are and what they want and how to how to reach them And unfortunately at this point in time we have far We're at a point where you have almost no access and there's almost no interaction part of that is The what we call the new york channel has been silent to a certain degree That's the you the north korean mission to the un Also, we have a travel ban in place on americans right now for about starting in september It'll be good for at least a year that prohibits most americans from traveling to north korea So there's so little opportunity for us to really get to know who they are That's certainly a concern of mine if we if we don't know who they are How do we even know how to punch them or reach out to them? But in terms of a carrot i'm just going to give us one one of the interesting things when Donald trump was campaigning was that he said I would sit down with kim jong-un and have a hamburger With him and I have to say it was kind of intriguing. There are reasons why you don't do that because it really Legitimizes the other the person you're sitting down with and that's certainly a concern But I can tell you that that's exactly what kim jong-un wants So it's an it was an intriguing proposal to put out there And I'm very interested to know if that could ever happen a little bit of burger diplomacy, which means legitimacy frank Is that a good carrot? That is a good carrot and I think so we know Exactly what north Korea wants because they've stated it repeatedly And I believe at this point the price has probably gone up So we know that they want to keep their nuclear weapons. They want relief from sanctions They want an end to u.s. Hospital policy, which means End to military exercises removal of u.s. Forces from the Korean peninsula They want economic concession. So we know what they want. It's just a matter of what are we willing to concede That allows them to get to the table or eventually get the goals that we want and a peace treaty, which is Part of all that's a lot. It's a bushel of carrots. I asked for one carrot. You gave me a bushel of carrots glin one carrot peace treaty That's a big carrot. That's a bug's bunny size. Yeah You wanted one you're gonna get one. It's a big one. Yeah And a peace treaty just as simple as that come to the table Congress you'd like to get one vote in congress for a peace treaty north korea. Yeah So, I mean this is part of the problem. I mean some of the things they want are impossible to deliver So let's be realistic And you have to see it the other way around Some things the us wants and we want the european union would would really like north korea's give a nuclear weapons We can't get because you can't deliver some of the things they want So let's be realistic about we're going to meet you in the middle somewhere It seems to me that the us interest is really about stopping them definitively having the ability to hit the mainland usa Forget about the nuclear weapons. That's gone That ship sailed that ship sailed in 2010 I think which was the the last time they mentioned the possibility of getting rid of their nuclear weapons Another book in your future glenn impossible carrots. I already have a title for you We're going to take another Short break of just about a minute or two and that will give all of you a chance to get your questions ready The mic will start traveling around the room because you have you have an opportunity to question these experts Yourself to stay with us Your radio show that's going to be all cut together on your local npr station It'll probably be on w a m u so now's your chance, but um like we always say on the show that I work on This show relies on you and this part of the show definitely relies on you So do not be shy. You're here because you care about these issues. So this is your chance to get in And um, I really want you to do it definitely want to hear from you. So so um, so please get in there And we're going to start in just one second Okay Here we go Welcome back everyone to our program brinksmanship US-north korea relations here at the united states Institute of peace in washington dc We're pleased to welcome back our panel us. I piece frank ome gene lee from the wilson center anthony regero on the end And glenn ford on the other end. Thank you all for being here one last little round of applause if you Well, now it's time for you to have your say in your questions I've asked plenty and i'm looking forward to a little bit of a break all I have to do now for the next couple of Minutes, it's point to the audience and hands are already up So there's going to be a mic coming around the room Identify yourself and who you'd like your question to go for let's start with the woman with her hand up right up there O'Donnell, I am a freshman over at american university studying international affairs with a Theometric area in national security human rights and conflict resolution. I'd like to address, uh, mr um, and uh rugio rugio I'm going to jero I called him frank before and his name is anthony. So don't feel bad. Well, there we go Uh, is making a deal with uh, north korea possible or do you think it would be arguing with a child that wants a cookie? But you can't give them the cookie, but they really want the cookie and if uh military intervention is preventable or necessary I think a deal is possible But it's I'm at the moment is looking very unlikely because I feel What the us wants and what north korea wants is uh, so fundamentally irreconcilable and so I think You know the us is saying Or north korea is saying that we absolutely want to keep our nuclear weapons and the us is saying is North korea absolutely cannot keep its nuclear weapons So if you take this all or nothing maximalist approach, then there really isn't space for diplomacy um, I think there needs to be a little give or there needs to be uh, Focus or a shift away from that singular focus on denuclearization and a look at more practical achievable intermediate steps that give us the political space to later on tackle some of the harder issues Well, I mean, I would I'll start there. I mean, I would just remind people that we've tried the middle ground, right? We've tried it a couple of times When we tried it in the 1990s north korea built a covert uranium enrichment program Which was another path to a nuclear weapon and then we tried it again in the six-party talks And north korea was building a nuclear reactor in syria and even after that was destroyed by israel The united states continued its negotiations Removing north korea from the state sponsor of terrorism list Blowing up the cooling tower young beyond and none of that worked So I think we have to be very clear eyed Suggesting that there's this middle ground here that sounds like the pessimist, but i'm actually the optimist I do believe that there is a negotiated settlement where north korea denuclearizes and how do you achieve that? Is the type of sanctions that I was describing earlier? I know that everybody is a pessimist when it comes to sanctions But there will come a time when chinese banks are punished for what they did for north korea And then you will have chinese banks on the front lines Identifying north korean money that is sitting in china that is used for the elites For the military and for the weapons programs and what kim jong-un is going to have to decide Is which of those are most important now? He gets to rank those one a b and c What happens when he has to he has to rank those one two and three? And that's going to be the issue for him His his revenue is going to dry up His relationship his economic relationship with china is going to dry up And that is the leverage that the united states can use to bring a negotiated settlement We don't have that leverage now and I think we shouldn't get caught up in the provocations that distract us It's a it's a deliberate attempt by north korea to distract the united states from denuclearization Anthony, how hard are you working to? Raise this strategy up to the trump administration and to and to convince them that iran style sanctions are the way to go Well, I I you know, I think they already know that I think that We certainly have conversations with them. I think there's some great work being done by organizations here in the u.s And dc in particular c4 eds for one has written two ground breaking reports On on chinese networks and the point I would make there is if c4 eds can find it Here in dc some of the largest banks in the world and china can find it I would also say capitol hill is watching some of the sanctions that were that were passed last year and this year An executive order 13810 that was issued by this administration in september Are are are carbon in some cases carbon copies from the sanctions program in iran The issue here is is the united states administration Willing to go and implement those sanctions and in this case means going after china And our other countries willing to move past from north korea. We're seeing some positive, right over 20 countries Have reduced commercial or diplomatic relationships or need we need to see more But that that has only been in this really over the last year interesting That's the place to watch over the next year or two. I think Let's go I don't want to give you too far to walk. Can we go down to the front to this gentleman here? Hello fascinating discussion. I'm michael marshal from the global peace foundation I'd like to hear from miss lee and mr. Ford who spent extensive time in north korea On their take on changes within north korean society, particularly as it affects the elites The people in pyongyang how important are they and what's going to happen if their standard of living instead of Steadily climbing starts to decline and then also the nexus between marketization and elite corruption. Thank you gene you go first The elites in pyongyang or the population of pyongyang is extremely important to the regime or to the leadership It's you know, some people describe north korea as having a poor economy. It's all I like to think of it a little bit like a A monarchy in a sense You have to keep a certain number of people happy in order to Win their loyalty So that's extremely important and remember that Until until fairly recently So many of the elites of pyongyang were working or traveling overseas the flights that I used to take were packed With north koreans who were doing business overseas Studying or had other reasons to go overseas. We're seeing some of that stop now Of course because of some of these sanctions But that meant that they were exposed to what life was like outside their country So they were developing a taste for some of these creature comforts iPhones Yeah, I used to sit next to just like me the north koreans would have to until until 2013 they would have to Lock their iPhones up or their samsung phones up in lockers at the airport Now they can take them in once they register them But often saw them with these devices that they became very comfortable with so in some sense What we've seen since kim jong-un took power is a lot of effort to try to make sure to keep that population happy so I've been traveling there for almost 10 years and I can tell you that it's changed This is a country where change comes at a glacial pace But in terms of the consumer culture It's changed quite a bit and that is directly because he knows he needs to keep those people happy He needs to give them some of those creature comforts now whether or not sanctions affect their access to this kind of These kinds of creature comforts I do think that we're starting to see some of those fissures We've had quite a number of high-profile defections from that elite class in the last year So perhaps we're starting to see that there's a strain on On even that population in pyongyang glenn Yeah, I mean the people pyongyang are extremely important and It's been very clear since around 2008 that there's been a Pyongyang was always privileged But there's been an enormous further privileging of pyongyang I mean you've now got restaurants, shops You've got a dolphin area, outdoor water parks Outdoor ice skating rinks in summer horse riding stables when you can't have a ski slope in pyongyang But you've got one in one side and you've got package holidays down to mount kung gang There's a that enormous privileging And you know you have borders around pyongyang Anybody can leave but coming back in You need permission so This this is a closed city and it's very important for for kim jong-un to actually Deliver to those people which is the point I'm making He believes he has to do two things which is the bunge in line He needs nuclear weapons to stop regime change Libya syria iraq And he needs to grow the economy now there's a degree of incompatibility there and that's the trick He's actually gotta gotta pull off now I mean maybe the sanctions will work I suspect that a certain point china's going to get fed up the notion that you can push china around as if it's some third world country I I I suspect doesn't work anymore President she will put up with quite a lot But there will be a point in which she says enough Is enough and you start interfering with china's banks in a big way and enough will be enough Do you need corruption? Yeah, I mean well, I I I don't know but I'm pretty convinced that there is a level of corruption In in in north korea. It's probably not entirely dysfunctional if you look at levels of corruption around the world Nigeria barely functions because of corruption I mean there there are other places where they're functional I don't think it's interfering with the functioning of the system. It's uh to a degree it's a bit like japan In a way, you have networks and they have the same kind of networks Most of the most of the industries most of the import exports are connected to a ministry to to a military unit To a section of the party there, you know, they're the protected ones and outside of that You've got what I call the chaos catalyst the the ronin the master list People going out creating the marketplace some make a lot of money Most end up in the hands of the the loan sharks and And lose their homes and their their possessions, but that's capitalism. I mean What what they want at the moment is they want what two countries one system That's what the north koreans want they want a separate north and separate south 25 years to grow their economy and then they'll bring their position to unify Let's see some More hands if we can Ma'am there in the in the black sweater. Hi, my name is maria jesseb. I'm with korea center for peace building Thank you for this discussion My question is about talks And what is the right way to go about encouraging those talks and who are the right players to to um Let's say mediate those talks It doesn't it seems the situation is too polarized between the u.s And north korea for there to be really direct talks without some sort of facilitation So my question is First of all when you talk about the elite Um, are there people within that group that can be harnessed to be To come up with some sort of platform for talks Are there are there intelligent intelligentsia that can be drawn or is it only people from the party political parties that can be engaged If you could just talk about the potential for talks and how that might come about that'd be great Jean would you like to take that one? It's not it's not venice rodman. I know that who's Does one of you want to take on the background on are you talking about direct talks or even say track two talks? Well, I'll make a quick point, but i'm sure glenna something to say so I want to reinforce a point that anthony made um, but also provide some background So in 25 early 2015 north korea actually originated their proposal for a dual freeze which now china has sort of taken up the mantle on And then later in the fall of 2015. They also proposed peace party talks, so they have been proposing talks certainly In recent years, but I think anthony is right that recently at least since september So they've been silent and so if we don't have that partner on the other end It's hard to see that happens things may change things are fluid, but I think you need to have a willing partner I suspect you're going to get a willing partner I mean As I say, I think the announcement The best use of the the third icbm was the announcement by kim jung-un that he's now finished his program Now the logic of that he's he's not in in the near future. They will now be willing to talk He didn't have to say that I suspect if the us sort Doesn't get down to talking or if the talks fail. He'll carry on with the program I mean he look at the history of the united states development of nuclear weapons You have a series of tests. You develop a particular weapon Then a bit later you start another series of tests to develop something different So, you know, there are there are places for him to go but at the moment there's a pause on Who's next? let's go to this Gentlemen down in the third row, please Also with the black sweater. That's our theme Thanks, aramund from the university of melbourne So two questions one is I've heard there's plans to close the sanctions office within the department of state and I wonder if Iranian-style sanctions are the way forward whether that closure will affect the capacity of us to to implement that regime um And the second is that the 2013 international crisis group report on north korea Suggested a positive way forward is really to avoid state tracks and to Focus on sporting exchanges the private sector so around adventure travel To open up new links on a people-to-people basis. So I wonder if anyone's got some Good examples of where they've been able to continue despite the travel ban situation Anthony go ahead Sorry, I wasn't able to hear the first questions on sanctions on sanctions Could would would you mind if if you restated your question just a little louder and and use a radio trick get right up close to that Mike, yeah Yeah, my apologies. That's the one so I've heard there's plans to close the sanctions office within the state department And so I wonder if that's going to reduce the capacity of the u.s. To implement an iranian-style regime You know, I would say that The decision to close the sanctions office in the state department I think that a lot of those responsibilities are going to be moved to other Elements of the state department, and I'm sure there will be others whether it's in the policy planning branch Or in the east asia office that will be able to Get other countries to implement north korea sanctions I think what we saw also in the iran's The iran sanctions was that the treasury department actually played a larger diplomatic role Where you had the under secretary for the treasury department Going overseas meaning with banks and companies and countries directly and describing the sanctions. So I'm not you know, I wouldn't focus as much on bureaucracies I would focus more on Are the right sanctions in place are the is the trump administration? Actually implementing those sanctions and are they pushing countries? To be consistent in their interactions with north korea music to rex tillersons ears Who tells us that there is no hollowing out going on at the state department? He's a well comment on that you know, I think that I think that traditionally secretaries of state have different priorities and There were it was only a couple years ago that the sanctions office did not exist and we were fine with sanctions Good enough. Let's get Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, you did Did did you want that question for for glenn ford? Did you did you catch it? His question restate it one more time and we're going to do the loud mic Yeah, I'm stealing mic time here So the second question was about the 2013 international crisis group report which called for positive Amuse forward in terms of sporting exchanges private sector initiatives so adventure travel programs And not just from the u.s. But around the world so I wonder if the panel has some positive examples of where that's continued Despite the travel ban situation. I think sports is probably you mentioned sports sports diplomacy still has some potential It's one of the only arenas It's one of the only ways that north koreans can get overseas right now We have an opportunity with the upcoming olympics. We don't know if the north koreans are going to Send a delegation. They have a pair skaters who qualified But sports is always one area the north koreans know this as well They try to take advantage of that so there's some potential there But a lot of other avenues for people to people engagement have been cut off No other areas for the soft power of a vacation planning to the grand canyon or the suburbs of peonyang No I mean logically the The more you engage the north koreans the better if you want to change the regime. I mean Have engagement Disengagement is entirely the wrong approach. I mean I picked listy waning.  So The more engagement the better Every time I set off an icbm. I'd engage more Yeah, I mean just to be clear I think I just want to point out the differences in evaluations After 10 months people want to declare sanctions don't work But after decades of engagement with north korea that have not produced the type of regime that we want The answer is more engagement So I think we've got to be consistent in how we evaluate our approach to north korea We've had 64 years of sanctions. No, we actually have we've had 64 years of sanctions Every time we have new tougher sanctions nobody says this lot aren't going to work because we're just playing Every set of sanctions is going to be the one that works. Happy to send you my work I'm going to declare sanctions on this part of the debate just so that we can make sure That the audience has more questions. This gentleman on the end Hi Gary redfield I work at the institute for defense analyses my questions for frank Given that you're recently removed from government and no longer on the under the bureaucratic thumb So to speak so you're able to speak your mind to be a little bit candid I'm hoping that you could provide insight into how much care and consideration was given to past policy towards north korea Under clinton and bush and I asked that because An individual who you may know who I've had at late discussions with evans revere Was paid to be at the time the first u.s. Ambassador to north korea And he mentioned at the time state did have that on the table all the things that north korea wanted the p-street The lifting of sanctions and it didn't work. So that's why i'm curious to know How much under the obama administration there was that care and consideration to what the u.s had done in the past That's a great question. Yeah, I could probably talk for a while on that first of all i'd say that The u.s. Institute of peace is funded by congress We're technically an independent organization, but we're also mindful. So I wouldn't say that I feel completely free Oh, you're slithering out of this one that that being said so You're right. I think there are some discussions I think in the late 90s about developing a special interest section in pyeongyang and people in the state department were We're studying Korean to eventually go and serve in that special interest section. I will say that the obama administration gave careful consideration to its policies and obviously I was a member of the administration So I may sound biased, but I would argue that Certainly it tried diplomacy early on in the first term and we saw That leading to two deals one is the leap day deal In february 2012 which was a moratorium on nuclear missile tests in exchange for 240000 tons of food aid There was also a deal that people don't know much about which is on remains recovery So there was a deal for u.s soldiers to go into north korea and help recover the remains of over 5 000 sets of U.s servicemen from the korean war and that fell by the wayside when north korea conducted a satellite launch in april 2012 I think in the second half of the obama administration that was basically That's the same policy that trump is using right now. It's so the trump administration's policy is an extension of what obama did, which is maximize pressure and build this coalition of of the international community to Put pressure and isolate north korea. I think anthony would agree that The trump administration has probably done They've really emphasized the maximize part and so He may see some differences, but I think this the strategy is basically the same I think The trump administration to its credit has done a great job in pressuring at just north korea But china and i'm sure anthony can list all the things that china is doing over the last year that suggests that the pressure is working Satisfied it's a good question There's a man in the back with his hand held high Thank you. Hi. My name is kevin grave. I'm based at the wilson center and I have a question again on sanctions Sorry, so I guess this is directed at anthony, but I think there's an assumption in what you say and in what many people say about sanctions in that In that the more strong they are the more successful they're likely to be but i'm not sure that's necessary the case historically if you look When sanctions have been applied i mean i think the strongest sanctions were not against iran but against iraq in the 1990s which went on for years and led to you know by some accounts to the death of half a million Premature death of half a million children, so there's a huge human cost But I think the reason for that is that sanctions work through very specific It's not just about how strong they are but it's about the political and the socioeconomic mechanisms through which they actually induce change And if you look at north korea, it's actually I think it's one of the countries that's least susceptible to sanctions because of the nature of its politics and its economy as well Which is actually very Self-efficient, so you know north korea. It's it's not only authoritarian, but it's almost totalitarian It doesn't have splits between elites like iran did it doesn't have a civil society like south africa South africa did so, you know, all these things make me very skeptical about the the Capability of sanctions to induce policy change in north korea So why don't we keep it there because that's actually a really fine place to stop and get an answer from Sure. Yeah, I mean I've heard a lot of these arguments. I think that uh, you know, I think we have to look at You know, what is north korea spending its money on and that's what I mentioned earlier and I think I think that the comparison I made with iran Is more that iran was targeted financial sanctions. I think their rock example was more in during the time when we had More of a broad-based country based sanctions program Which you know, I think if you look at the end of the iran program We were probably closest to that but the ramp up was What's considered targeted financial sanctions? I think we're somewhere In the middle maybe toward the end of that process with uh north korea in the sense of What's already been implemented? But yeah, I agree. I think the issue here is that This is not a regime that cares a lot about its people And so I've heard this many times as a criticism of sanctions that The north korean people will just continue to suffer And that sanctions fault when it really is north the north korea regime's fault The issue here is how do you restrict the revenue that is going to the three levers that they're using for regime survival And that they don't have to make that determination now the elites the military and the weapons programs But one thing that the north koreans have helped out in this regard is keeping Some of that money or in some cases maybe all of that money in china That's a significant vulnerability for them And so the issue here for north korea is going to be If china starts to restrict that voluntarily or involuntarily How will they how will they react? And then what and then the question do you raise of How will that React amongst the elites and then within the civil society those are those are certainly open questions You know, I think the way it worked with iran is that Eventually, we got to a point Where there were severe pressures on their economy And in the case of iran one of their commodities in the sale of oil That was restricted overseas and that they got to a point where that leverage they had to release that pressure Or these drivers these civil society and and elite pressures Could have been overwhelming on the regime I think there's one other i'm just going to add on to that There's one other way to look at sanctions and that's to look at it as a possible tool for diplomacy In the sense that if north korea is doing continuing to build up its program You also want to have if you're on the other side of the eventual negotiating table You want to have something that you can negotiate away? So that's just another way to look at it. Yeah leverage. I mean that's the thing You know if we walked into negotiations today, we don't have a lot of leverage And that's you know, and when I talked about deterrence not preventing proliferation, you know If we're not getting to denuclearization sanctions is a way to prevent that proliferation as well But we accept that the sanctions are working economy hurting ordinary north korean men women and children and not the elite All right I'm going to exercise my leverage here and tell you that we just have about four or five minutes before We're going to wrap up. So the place where I want to wrap up Before you leave us today is with What I think is the bottom line of this discussion We're going to go to each of you just before we wrap up frank You're going to go last since you're our host you're going to get the last word on this I'll give you the give you the last word slot How urgent Is this problem this problem? We spent the last 90 minutes talking about are we actually closer to war Than we were a year ago glinn go ahead Absolutely. I mean quite how close we are. I don't know but I mean the bulletin of atomic scientists used to have the The famous clock advancing towards midnight, which is when the next nuclear war was going to happen And ices used to be about three minutes to midnight. I say we're one minute to midnight now There's a there's a real prospect and if you talk to people in washington about what the possibilities are They talk 10 20 30 percent Now those are incredibly high numbers because if you asked someone 10 years ago, we were we were down around zero So, you know We're in a worrying position And it seems to me that the only way you get out of that there are three There are three roads to war at various speeds One is to take military action one is Covert action, which is we haven't talked about The u.s. Policy of change regime The third one is sanctions because if if they really start hurting do we think kim jong-un is going to come to the negotiating table Or engage in military adventurism and the fourth one The only peaceful solution is through negotiations and as soon as we get there the better Jean Lee sabre rattling tweeting and Increasingly sophisticated tests. Are we actually closer to confrontation than we were? We are close We there is so much potential to be drawn into some sort of conflict We've got as I mentioned 80 000 u.s troops in the region How many more do we have from north korea south korea poised and ready? Braised I mean with this last missile test It was just not that long after that the south korean army conducted conducted its own missile test So clearly they were prepared, but i'm just going to say something else Which is I am not so concerned about the prospect of nuclear war But I am as somebody who lives on the korean peninsula concerned about every test And the dangers posed not only in terms of safety I mean there's an entire mountain in north korea that collapsed after the last nuclear underground nuclear test Think about all the radiation that was uh transmitted into the air If we have another nuclear test as possible it might be above ground as frank mentioned hugely dangerous And then also I want to just mention the cost to the north korean people This is in an expensive program and they are diverting resources away To from basic infrastructure just want to tell you oh, so normally in the past This was the time of year when I was in north korea freezing. They don't have heat. They don't have electricity. They've limited electricity clean water Running water toilet. I mean There it's a difficult place to live and and by Allowing this program to continue we're taking Food out of the mouths of average north korean So I do worry about I just want to remind you that the people of the korean peninsula are also paying the price Anthony rigerio your final thoughts if we're actually closer to war than we were Well, I you know, I don't think we're closer to a military conflict or war.  I think that's that's really the the danger I see that something happens so that it escalates quickly You know, I would also say that we have to be careful about creating these Creating these mindsets that we can just Have some talks with north korea and that we will You know magically be able to wave a magic wand and solve this issue I think we need to be very careful about the drive By beijing in particular To drive up the danger and say that we're gonna have a military conflict and the only solution Is a flawed nuclear deal? Uh a freeze for freeze. I think that makes us more dangerous. I think the 70 day over 70 day pause Clarifies that north korea continue the continues these programs Even when we think that they are already stopped So the only solution the only peaceful solution Right now continue with sanctions to create the leverage For denuclearization talks Frank last word So I think at the current trajectory the situation is very urgent Either trump it president trump is Serious about what he's saying so when he says fire and fury when he says The calm before the storm when he says the window is closing He's either he either means it in which case the situation is urgent Or he's bluffing in which case we kind of go to a status quo where we continue to contain north korea We continue to turn north korea, but at the same time we open ourselves up to a situation that anthony mentioned Which is where we sort of stumbled into a conflict because of a conventional provocation I think uh, I don't want to leave it on a pessimistic note. I think again the situation is fluid things can change I believe in sanctions. I believe in the saying that sanctions don't work until they work I think they're necessary, but also they're not sufficient. I think The the same applies for diplomacy diplomacy doesn't work until it works I think there's a good track record in the 90s of diplomacy working the greek framework working for eight years It prevented the the the plutonium processing at young gun for eight years Until the greek framework was scrapped. So I think there's always potential But the the situation has to change from both the north korean side and the united states side I want to thank all of you for joining us for this program today. It's been a pleasure for me I want to thank frank. I'm our host here at the usip. Thanks so much glin. Thanks to you gene and anthony It's been a pleasure and thanks for having me as part of this It's been a lot of fun. Have a great weekend everybody Oh give them a little throws with them If you want to watch radio magic, you're welcome to watch it. It doesn't look like much. I'll I promise you that ready? three two one glin frank gene