tv Washington Journal Mieke Eoyang CSPAN March 11, 2018 9:47pm-10:18pm EDT
[inaudible conversations] announcer: you've been watching prime minister's questions. you can watch any time online at c-span.org. >> welcome. fornational vice president third way. what is that? here inis a think tank washington, d.c. host: the president is said to sit down with kim jong-un sometime in may. will this happen in and is it significant? i think it is a question as to whether or not it will actually happen. we haven't had a president said down with north korea since the
founding of the country. some people were very surprised to hear it. i think that once the invitation was extended to the president he accept it.to you want to be sure you lost -- make sure you exhaust all options. how significant where the olympics in south korea that led to kim jong-un meeting with his to thisarts that led with president trump? the olympics have always been an opportunity for goodwill. the fact that this happened at the time of tensions was fortuitous. it comes amid heightening pressure from the united states. strong rhetoric. korea, feelingh
pressure across if variety of places along the world. in a directiong of trying to get north koreans and south koreans to start talking again. host: the president talks about north korea and here is an excerpt. >> obama said it was the biggest problem we had. and south korea went there. we put very strong sanctions and lots of other things we have been doing right from the first day i was in office. and after having gone to north and --seeing kim jong-un no, it is positive. we now have to be very nice because, let's see what happens. the south korean top representatives, they walked out
the white house to a throng of these characters. big room. and everybody wanted to find out what happened. and just left north korea north korea is tough. they are doing a lot of things. this should have been handled over the last 30 years. not now. they should have handled this. this should have been handled. and everybody will say it but that is ok. we handle things. host: that was the president, also tweeting over the past few days saying "north korea has not conducted a missile test since november 28, 2017 and has promised not to do so through our meetings. i believe they will honor that commitment." reaction? north koreans are pausing in their testing because they progress.tremendous
it doesn't hurt them deposit. there are questions today about whether or not they are stopping testing. the president is giving an account of how he feels this is going. and he is very much interested in the drama of this. talking about south koreans going out to the media and it was a production. flattery tends to work with this president. i think the challenge here is that this is a situation where you cannot wing it. it has consequences. and for the president to walk into the meeting, the president has to study up. listen to his advisors. and understand what the possibility is of getting something out of the north koreans. worldave disappointed the
over and over again over the claims that they want to negotiate and then walking away. we have seen this now with administrations. this -- thethe way way this unfolded. it was the president to came to the briefing room announcing that would be a announcement at 7:00 at night. guest: that's right. you see the president here as a one-man band. which is dangerous. how manygerous given different moving parts there are two this. it is not just the south koreans to worry about in the region. there are also the japanese and in chinese have a stake this. so everyone, including rex tillerson, are getting taken by surprise.
host: do you know if he was part of the negotiations or discussion that led to the president accepting the invitation? guest: it has been reported that he was not. the decision about whether or not to meet was just the president. host: we get to your phone calls in a moment. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. line forave a independent callers and you can send us a tweet. anytime we talk about north korea, the name auto warm beer comes up. his tragic death. based on what you know, what happened to him? guest: i don't know that we know .xactly what happened what happened inside north korea, we don't know, other than he was clearly badly mistreated by the north koreans.
they do not have a good rapport with not just people who come to the country but also with their own citizens. ast: down the road, is this concern about the north korea and south korea? more -- think tried is i think china is more concerned -- if they are less inclined to cause trouble in the region, it is better for china. but we are a long way from that. the germanears past reintegration. given how hard that was for germany. host: the other issue that has come up is whether or not we would move troops from the
denuclearize stone. i think -- guest: the weapons that they have had over the past 15 years, giving up nuclear weapons, you are more full herbal a regime change. that gives their leaders very concerned that someone may try to topple this regime. host: our guest is mieke eoyang. you work for which members and senators? guest: i worked with senator kennedy and i served on the house committee staff. host: john is joining us from new jersey. good morning. caller: when you look back over the last few presidents with eight years of bush and obama and clinton -- that is quite a good number of years.
quarter of a century where nothing has really been accomplished. as far as denuclearizing north korea. the opposite is actually happened. and i listen to the experts on the shows and i think trump is doing the right thing in that he is making progress towards something and he is trying something different. the sameanity to tried thing over and over again. i think we do see an opportunity here. i think the real question is whether the president can make it into actual progress. the jury is still out on that. with his doubts personality and the way he likes to negotiate. host: we go to leave or a next. president of north
korea finally got his missiles in place. he can do an assault now. i think that we do see a slight change of policy in this administration, putting diplomatic pressure on the north koreans, that isn't necessarily just this president. but you are right in the sense that north korea has made technological advances. and they have moved differently in these negotiations. host: the secretary of state was in ethiopia. and when asked about whether or happen, here is rex tillerson. >> as trump has indicated, we do have positive signals coming given the korea
korean dialogue with south korea. we are playing close attention to what president moon is saying. them withviding meetings. negotiationsut the -- we are a long way from negotiations. let's be very clear and realistic about it. but what i said before, we need to have talks. icause i don't know yet -- don't know if we will meet face-to-face with north korea, whether the conditions are right. and that is the current state.
host: that was rex tillerson. and that was on the same day when a few hours later, the president announced he would meet with kim jong-un. what role is he playing in shaping foreign policy? guest: what is he rex tillerson of smallthere is a lot blocks that need to happen to raise the pressure on north korea. and with the state department we see a pressure to push that forward. it is important they are keeping the focus on diplomacy. whenard talks previously the president said they were considering military options but this is part of the decision not to go forward. there are real questions about whether or not a military strike is actually under consideration by the administration but the consequences would be devastating. host: and the so-called bloody nose strategy -- explain the
approach and why that is on the back burner? esko it would be a strike south koreanon strategy. is even a bloody nose strike a big operation and it is an act of war. it is taking action not u.n.stent with the charter. and for the u.s. to be the first actor in this? have different conventional capability. rockets in south korea and japan, they could kill hundreds of thousands of people, including many americans who live in both of those countries. the retaliation would be terrible and there would be terrible long-term retaliation for that. the: if you go back to point that since harry truman, no president has met with the north korean leader, the other
side of the coin could be, why not? why haven't we talked to kim jong-un? here ishat we have seen notthat the present -- is that the north koreans have taken positive steps to release tension on the pill into a other than opening up a channel to the south koreans. holds out the possibility of the talks over and over again and the world rushes in and they get something. food, aid or fuel which benefits them and then they returned to their own ways. host: based on what you know of the north korean government, if this meeting would take place, how much coverage of that would it get in north korea and what would it give him in north korea? guest: north korea is not a
democracy. they don't actually care that much about what their people think other than as a propaganda piece to show their people that they would say he is being respected on the world stage and they want to make him seem as an equal which is not true. him. an internal boost for host: let's get back to your phone calls. maurice is joining us. i don't you can't discount the ultimate outcome of a reunification. kim jong-un was educated in the west and he is a fan of western culture and he knows that his country cannot go further to the right than what it already has. so he can't go further in that direction for his country or
himself. secondly, and this is a question. ultimated be the outcome of direct talks between this president and kim jong-un? they aren't going to give up .heir nuclear weapons they are just protecting themselves. speculate would be the ultimate outcome of these conversations between the two factions? guest: i think we have a real question because everyone agrees. a are likely to give up the nuclear weapons. one thing you could have as an outcome here is additional inspections into the north korean regime. very small step and it doesn't do a lot to reduce the security threat to the united states. but there are some things we could get but they are small steps. raisegger question you about what happens with a
reunification of the korean peninsula and how much further they could go on this approach, they do understand that they to be an outlier that doesn't participate in the world economy and the question is, what is the path out for north korea? and many people are looking to what china did when they were a closed country. not sitting in the global andomy and have had a long slow process over decades to come back into the global economy. meeting, if it happens, it would be in may. would it be in a neutral country? i think these negotiations about the how and the wear and the shape of the temple and the people participating -- all of these will take a long time to negotiate.
host: and we do not have an ambassador to south korea. guest: that is correct. they declined to go forward. it is speculated it was his militaristict the stroke. and i want to say one thing about the possibility of a military strike on north korea. for the be bad not just lives lost and infrastructure lost and the impact on the global economy but in a geopolitical sense, the real winner if the u.s. strikes north korea is china. the reason why the u.s., the largest military power in asia that you accept our presence here and we make sure war doesn't break out. the problem is, if we start the war then the security guarantee
comes under serious question by other regional players. host: back to your phone calls from virginia. caller: good morning. -- i think weg have a wonderful president and not just because i am republican. he is a smart man and he knows talking to this korean man is going to get him somewhere. everybody talks about him. if peoplereat man and stick together as americans, we should respect our president. we respected obama. why can't we respect donald trump? he is a wonderful man. he has says some things that are not funny but i am so happy. he will get with this korean guy. trump. he will love mr.
isaac give will be wonderful and i am glad. so there are real questions of substance here that we have to see how it goes into negotiation. is that problem here this is a president to is prone to improvisation and who does what he thinks and doesn't like to be told what to do by his advisers. but in a high-stakes situation like this, you can't just wing it. you wouldn't want someone to wing it in an international corporation and we don't want someone to do it here. host: we are talking to mieke is chris from milwaukee on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call.
could commente about what some partners are talking about with missile technology? vladimir putin and kim jong-un are working together and in addition, this meeting seems like it was suspiciously timed in some regards. to connectedseems to the russians in some way or form. and it elevates north korea and it diminishes us on a world stage. could commentou on that. host: we do want to draw attention to our peace with the washington post mentioned a moment ago. "location, location, location >> ." guest: the connection between
this president and you investigation by special counsel .ob mueller but it is important to connect strategy. they are trying to reduce america standing on a world stage. their interest. so you do have to wonder what role they are playing in all of this. and i don't think we know. on fox news, they already talked about the possibility of donald trump receiving the nobel peace prize. that is a long way away. agreeing to talk is not the same as actually achieving any piece. and they think there are many who critique a nobel committee the wording potential and
not achievement. i would expect a backlash in that. we should wait to see if there is any achievement out of these negotiations before anybody gets awarded anything. at the time when barack obama was elected, given how poor the u.s. standing was in the world the u.s. is toal global leadership, his presence with restoring america's standing, that was a big shift as to what happened after the iraq war. host: where our relationships today with nato and the european union and japan and allies in asia? guest: our relationships with friends have declined precipitously and we did see
that at the nato summit. trump went to nato and he tried script and we came out of the meeting with the sense that the u.s. is no longer the most popular country and nato. the leader of the alliance. and how that alliance has now shifted to the french and german. that hasn't been true in the history of the alliance. the president was isolated. he was a building good relationships with our allies and that is a sign of the u.s. having a tough road ahead. not having as many friends who will help us get the job done for what we need done. host: we do welcome our radio audience. , you are on the air with mieke eoyang.
caller: she stole my thunder. i wanted to say the nobel peace prize people are somewhat integrated. if you look at the things that , syria, egypt,d russia, crimea, georgia, the ukraine and they gave him a nobel peace prize -- he didn't accomplish one dog on thing. guest: i strongly disagree with the collar about that. one of the most vital threats that the united states faced was the possibility of a nuclear armed iran. presidentnt -- this obama rallied the global community in order to do that and it was a huge accomplishment.
not only that, that was a decades, who, after tracked osama bin laden down to the ends of the air that and made sure that he could never hurt americans again. i don't think it's fair to say obama didn't do anything. he also had to put the country back on the right track after depression economic we'd ever seen. host: you said that the president approaches negotiation as a zero sum game? guest: yes. way to approach negotiation where do everything i get, you lose something. the other way is to find how we both get what we want out of it. for the president to win, someone else has to lose. so going into the negotiation the other party to lose
something. and that is a very poor position for the other party to bn and it makes it much harder for them to sign on the dotted line. see howident, when you he negotiates with congress and other things, he puts people through a process where they have to be humiliated on the way. and it doesn't make anyone want to make a deal with him. host: we go to georgia. good morning. i did not vote for trump. i don't like for trump. but i have to give credit where credit is due. he pushed back against kim jong-un last year, it occurred to me that he may actually make in this particular situation. so fast forwarding to now, there are reports that kim jong-un is i thinkout of cash and
he has come to the conclusion that life can't go on like this. i think that maybe why he is opening up this conversation. that these me negotiations could turn into a three-way negotiation with china. and i think the earlier, that maybe there is a path for north korea adopting china's path a left the scene, is a possibility. i see that is the only way. i don't think china wants are subsidize to keep peace in the region. host: if i could turn that into a question? what does kim jong-un want from the u.s.? the u.s.e offer that
has put on the table is that you have a choice. you could have a nuclear weapon or an economy. north korea has not had access to the global economy. and as the caller noted, they are really suffering. they're people are starving and they don't have the energies they need and they are not producing anything in the world. it is a dead end path. and that was will be put forward for iran as well. an economy or a weapon. reevaluate has to weapons over an economy. host: if you could put a number on the percent of chances that the meeting happens? guest: i'm not optimistic. 60%-40%? but whether or not there is a
good outcome? i am really not optimistic. >> c-span's washington journal with news and policy issues every day. coming up monday morning, we will preview the week ahead in washington. cost to much will it fund the pentagon? we will find out. also, be sure to watch "washington journal" each sunday for our series on 1968, america in turmoil. we will look at the vietnam war and the fractious residential election. in the coming week, the u.s. house will take up legislation on school safety, its first gun red