tv Washington Journal Robert Gallucci Discusses North Koreas Nuclear Program CSPAN January 8, 2017 9:08am-9:40am EST
at the time of veterans bureau scandal, which charles ford was the center was equally important. this man had come down in history as a cook. i got intrigued by this. ontonight at eight eastern q&a. washington journal continues. host: welcome robert gallucci, currently a distinguished professor at georgetown university. take you for being with us. let me share with you and opinion piece from former defense secretary william perry confronting north korea, talk first and get help later. all of this in response to kim
address," new year's we will continue to build up our self-defense capability, the pivot of which is nuclear forces and the capability for preemptive strike as long as the united states and the forces keep a threat in blackmail and as long as they do not stop doorstepe games on our disguising them as annual events we will defend peace and security of our state is all costs -- at all costs and make an contribution to safeguard global peace and stability." your reaction? you are smiling. guest: i am smiling because it is very north korean in town. it's not subtle or sophisticated. it's in your face and a threat. they are using the word preemptive strike, slipping it in there.
the fact of the icbm capability, they think it will be a fact in a year or a couple of years, changes the game for them. one of the questions is, is that something that we would not like to see happen? the piece by bill perry at which i haven't read, but the suggestion that he leaves it with theor us to start thought that we might be able to negotiate this situation and improve it before getting tough. try the negotiation first and get tough if that doesn't work is exactly right. when they get tough, we get tough area -- get tough.
if we're interested trying to deal with it threat and i believe it is a threat, than the way to try to do it i believe is negotiation first. if it doesn't work we have to think about other things. what does north korea want to do with nuclear capability. is in a real or tool or arsenal? guest: in the first instance, the north korea nuclear program, was the north korea action to a bodef developments that ill for north korea. ago,ch as 25 or 30 years the collapse of the soviet union, the recognition of the south koreans, the republic of korea by china. beingly of south korea the sole remaining superpower, the u.s.
the security threat in the u.s., they have pointed out to us to what we did in libya, they said they do not wish to see that. i would recommend starting by trying to see things through their eyes. they have no real friends, they are isolated, they are a client state of china, china has only one -- warm feelings towards the north korean government. they are isolated is the first point. from our respective, this is a threat notwithstanding, whether it is north koreans see themselves as threatened, we see the threat. we see the possibility of some north korea adventure, and they do provocations at sea, they do shelledthe dmz, they
an island. one of those incidents could escalate, and now we are talking about north korea with nuclear weapons and building an arsenal and diversifying the delivery capability. they will be a real nuclear weapons state. probably 10ng now or 15 nuclear weapons and by the ends this new president administration may be 50 or 100 nuclear weapons. .his is a serious situation we have known for a long time that possibility of a conventional conflict could turn into a nuclear conflict. other threats that are obvious that they haven't icbm capability -- they have an icbm capability. but directly, the cubs middle of the u.s. comes within their
range. there is a possibility that just the program provokes a nuclear weapons program in japan or north korea who may feel uncomfortable relying on the american. --l the new president under for example undermine the credibility or suggest it is ok if they wish to have their own to track -- deterrent capability. this is an incredibly important point. north korea did something recently which is the stuff of spy movies. they transferred a plutonium production reactor, they built one in syria. israelis bombed that facility. if they had not bombed that facility almost certainly it would have been producing plutonium. and plutonium is one of the two materials that can be used to
make a nuclear weapon. they are capable of not only causing real damage and raising concerns about the security for our allies but anywhere on the planet by transferring this technology. this is a situation that needs to be addressed. why bill perry includes his peas with these words. he said time is of the essence and if we don't find a way and soon to freeze their west for this crisis could spin out of control, leading to a second korean war, adding far more devastating than the first. guest: that's exactly right. it is no suppressed that bill parry would be focusing just on exactly what he ought to be. i think the way i would hope the new administration will look at this situation. comments, call and
our guess is robert gallucci, now a professor at georgetown. democrats line from palm beach gardens florida. welcome to the congress ocean. caller: good morning. wondering how is he going to negotiate this opening? how do you negotiate with north korea? guest: that's a fair question, given the experience given the obama administrations where negotiations never got going. weis quite possible that will not have an adequate basis for negotiations, and will be talking about even cover -- tougher sanctions. enough toot tough
follow what might be called the iran model. there is reason to believe that the north koreans are not pleased with their current situation and would like to negotiate and the question is whether there is a basis for negotiation and whether we can at least begin by having talks about talks, in which there are no preconditions on both sides me. there will be concerns that we have off the bat, and that is we not have these negotiations legitimize north korea's nuclear programs. if we get into serious talks, these talks would be aimed at ultimately a non-nuclear weapons states in the north. the north may be willing to go there or not.
all of this needs to be explored. i would say early on and the administration as i believe bill perry is doing, we ought to explore the possibility to see whether we can have a basis for negotiations. host: donald trump tweedy and north korea," north korea just tweeted -- just said they have a nuclear weapon capable of reaching the u.s.. it will happen. " guest: i'm not sure what he means i it won't happen. the north has had five nuclear weapons test. we believe they have been aiming to make that weapon of the right size and weight so they could meet it with an icbm which the north koreans were probably test sometime in 2017.
how that will be stopped is unclear to me. i certainly hope whatever plans the new president may have to do wouldy the use of force involve consultations with those likely to have to deal with the reactions first. those would be our treaty allies in south korea and japan. the use ofnk taking force off of the table would be a wise thing to do. i don't like it would be the first thing to decide to do either. host: d responding to your chinar comment saying using north korea to dictate policy to its adversaries. do you want to elaborate? that: the idea here is china would be in the catbird seat in this scenario. i don't see china as being in a
catbird seat. they have some interest that overlap without scum of not congruent, but they are not interested in seeing a war on their doorstep. they share a border with north korea. they are not interested in seeing an increased in americans military and naval power in northeast asia. they are also not interested in seeing the regime collapse, which makes them unfortunately, a country that has been undercutting that fully supporting the sanctions regime. as the only patron of the north korean regime, and they are a country that we should be speaking to about how we deal with the nuclear capability, because they have the most influence. you are and your doctorate from brandeis university. george on the republic line from california. caller: good morning.
we are negotiating with north korea for how long? north korea is no threat to us. we see china. we see 70% of the world. we can put enough sanctions on china to print pressure on north korea. my main question is this. what do you think donald trump will do good for this world? you are professor georgetown. 90% of birth fosters our left wearing liberal. professors are left-wing liberal. that set of questions covered a fairmont territory. with this, whether
north korea is truly a threat to the united states and our interest. i would say yes. north korea is a threat, a potential threat to the u.s. and to our allies in northeast asia. as i am sure the caller knows, we have many interests in asia, we have a vision of what the agent -- asia-pacific region should look like. about what role china might play as a responsible state older, engaging china in order to match the threat with north korea. this has been on the mind of presidents for some time. serviceas in government we talked about this, china was enlisted and played an active role in the bush administration.
use the chinese here, but as i said before interests are overlapping but not congruent. don't know exactly what to say to the caller about the charge of being a labral -- liberal. and iably am a liberal don't think that is a handicap for me. i do believe when it comes to international politics, i spent 20 years in government service, i believe i am a realist and i am approaching the north korean case as a realist. host: you served as special you don't with the north korean crisis in 1994 serving as the chief negotiator. the executive chair of the un's special command should --
that oversawssion the first gulf war. jeff in savannah, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. -- my question is this, you have two people now who are perceived to be having short fuses. countries your thatthat short futures fuses, you are looking at a bad disaster, speaking as someone who has spent 20 years in the miller terry. -- in the military. japan, south korea, and a host be inntries are going to very bad parent. thank you. did you want to follow up?
my question is is that who in the trump administration has a cooler head then he -- that he will listen to? things i'me are many pretty sure i don't know and one thing is what is going to happen in the new administration. then't know what role various players, i know institutionally where they are, the different presidents run their national security teams in different ways. one doesn't know what role exactly the national security , the secretary of state or defense and who will play a dominant role on which security issue. it's impossible, i think, for
everyone -- anyone to start making productions about where the cool heads will be. we are hoping their will be one cool head occupy the oval office. all i would mean by that is someone who will take -- listen to advice, experts out there, wherever they are, people with experts in nuclear weapons and relations and make some decisions which put things in the right order. you heard a few minutes ago that the former secretary of defense bill perry wrote a piece in which she suggested the right order was first explore the possibility of negotiations before trying a tougher policy with the north. i think that is right and i am hoping that the new president will take note of that and consider that as a way to proceed. host: that pieces in today's washington post.
also some political uncertainty in south korea. how does that impact all this if at all. guest: the situation in south korea is complicated. eight -- an election was to be held in the fall. now with the troubles that -- with herump impeachment, who would be the candidate, whether she would and what will happen in terms of an earlier election and who will be the principal candidates. the only observation that i would make is that in south korea unlike in the united states, the situation with north just a not foreign-policy issue. it is the issue. it is the biggest domestic issue for obvious reasons as well as a security issue.
the north koreans are clearly watching carefully what happens and it is likely that election and the south will turn somewhat on what the south korean people believe would be the person best able to deal with the situation in the north. i think that will be a dominant issue. what is the population of .orth korea, and of south korea what is the stretch of the dmz zone how many miles? guest: dmz is about 20 some miles or more from seoul. city size, seoul is the dominant city in south korea depending on how you count. inis 12 or 13 million people
the metropolitan area of soul. the army of self. korea is around 600,000 or so. the army of north korea is a million or more. in terms of readiness, the north koreans have negative growth and have had real problems with their military, not a military that has the resources to practice and exercise and do everything that a modern military such as the south has been doing for a long time. long areshows just how border it is between china and north korea. border with a long china. interest todeep north korea's future. it is not interested in having sanctions succeed to the extent
that they might cause pain to bring down the regime. they do not wish to see the instability in northeast asia that would follow from the collapse of the government in pyongyang. caller: good morning. my comment is an extension of an earlier caller from georgia who spoke about cooler heads. reality inre is a our current situation that is and not considered or discussed. trump isecause unbalanced, unstable personality to does not react normally situations in terms of interacting with others, in terms of interacting with policy, in terms of interacting
with the responsibility of governing. in terms of interacting with or attacksng to personal to him or that he takes personally in a way that a normal personality would not interpret. i don't say this as a partisan shot against trump, in all seriousness. we are think we are not dealing, especially in the case of north korea, i think your are two unbalanced, unstable, abnormal personalities involved, who cannot deal with each other in the way that we normally think of people interacting or governments interacting or political leaders interacting here it i don't know -- interacting. to do we detect both -- try understand that.
how do you interpret, don't seem to be taking into account, i think we should try to understand that better. host: i'm going to jump in. guestsng to give you are a chance to respond. i know how i take the evidence which you are bringing to bear on the question of what can we expect in the future from the president elect. for me, i don't have any evidence that i think is compelling about how the new president would behave as the new president. i think we have a lot of information about how he behaved as a candidate and you may like or dislike that europe but the presidency is a very unique office.
i am going to wait and see how the new president response to challenges of that office and has responsibility to protect the security of the united states. paul, eastlake ohio, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. our vision of asia -- is his vision of asia. have theire let them own vision and forget about our talking about our interests. every time we get somebody on the rogue ram they are always talking about our interests. me what myasked interest is or anybody that i know throughout the united states what their interest is in the foreign governments. i haven't no interest in any of those countries.
they are just organizations, corporations who go over there and make money off of those people. you have been dealing with them all this time and not accomplished anything. the world is getting worse. maybe we should put some 10-year-old babies in their on both sides and there -- and they would sell everything. guest: my own view here is that the united states does have interest that extend beyond our borders. this is a world in which we recognize interconnections ever since the country wassince the . we have recognized the importance of europe, the middle east and south east asia particularly. and, over time to understand the , orous south of the equator africa also hold interest and connect to our values. we would care so much about
these things that we would go and fight wars and send our sons and daughters off to be killed and be involved in the killing of others to protect those interests suggests there are people who have thought about this and believe that it is appropriate for a nationstate like the u.s. to do such things. when i use the phrase and maybe it came out to lightly and american vision of the asia-pacific region i did not mean it lightly. meant it with some gravitas. and values that we wish to protect and we have allies. we have responsibilities. all that means that policies need to be complex and we need to be aware of threats as well as opportunities. this morning we have been talking mostly about a threat. host: let me conclude with this question.
1989, 1990, germany reuniting after its divisions that the door to rate can you -- after world war two. thinking about the problem of the korea and its for a couple of decades or's out that it is very hard to conceive settlementdurable and the threat that does not involve a reunification. it is hard to see it in the near regime at hereditary a state that i think qualifies as totalitarian in its character . it is hard to see that blending with the genuine democracy and the south very time soon. eventually i think that is a one korea people and deserve a korean state. i think in the mind of all of us we ought to be working toward
that. if ever so slowly. host: professor robert gallucci a veteran of the state department and the united nations. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it very we have 20 minutes remaining on the program and we want to share with you what the l.a. times was writing over the weekend, regarding building the wall in mexico. republicans in congress are beginning to grapple with how to help president elect trump fulfill one of his biggest campaign promises, to build a wall along the mexican border to slow illegal immigration. askis expected to ask congress to provide initial funding for the wall or it $38mated cost between 12 to billion.
we will take a short break in the back in moment. the washington journal continues on this sunday morning. >> monday night on the communicators, research cold finder craig moffett offers perspective into the tv and video and his three as the administration changes. they discussed possible shifts in the fcc. we don't know who will be the next chairman of the fcc. i think the world of
sensiblener pike has and well grounded respect that suggests real balance between the needs of infrastructure and the needs of application. >> watch the communicators monday night at a on c-span2. >> the presidential inauguration of donald trump this friday -- on friday, january 20. c-span1 have live coverage. watch live on c-span and c-span.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> w