tv Quadriga - The International Talk Show LINKTV June 15, 2018 7:00am-7:31am PDT
♪ >> hello and a very warm welcome indeed to "quadriga" where we look at the fallout from the summit in singapore between u.s. president donald trump and north un.ean leader kim jong at the meeting, there were handshakes followed by the signing of a document in which trump and kim promised t to work toward the complete denuclearization of the korean peninsula. the question is -- will be's too volatile leaders keep their promises, and is this agreement only going to upgrade the
standing of a murderous dictator -- will these two volatile leaders keep their promises? i'm joined in the studio by sascha hach, an expert with the ican organization. he says trump and kim's deal does not go far enough. to succeed, denuclearization of the korean peninsula has to be in bedded in national law. also with us is matthew karnitschnig, chief europe correspondent for politico. he says it may be hard to accept, but trump is right and just getting north korea to the table to talk is an impressive outcome. thedahye yim from communications research center here in berlin who says that understanding and knowing korea
is the key to peace. for evening and thank you being here. the south korean president has been quoted as saying that the trump-kim summit opens the way to a new era of peace and cooperation on the peninsula. do you agree? i totally agree. it's a very historical moment with the south and north korean summit in april and the following summit which happened a few days ago. i think it's very historical that north korea came to the negotiating table on the same level with the u.s., and also when we look at the articles of the agreement, article number one was not denuclearization, which is very unfair -- which could be unfair for north korea. however, they first said that a new relationship between the u.s. and north korea would be a priority and also that the piece regime -- the peace regime
should be protected. the u.s. agreed to give protections to north korea, which is a big success, i believe, and they also have the article of denuclearization, but this is a big step, and for the first step, i think it is enough and is totally a success. peter: should i assume from everything you are saying that there is a mood of euphoria in south korea at this time? hope ines, we find more this moment, and i also personally experienced that many koreans had fear in their heart, fear of war, and this was hiding .nside them for many y years when they face the fear that is inside their heart, fear of war then theyde powers, cannot survive for their whole
lives because they know how devastating the situation can be. but they have overcome their fears. they are trying to step further festivals out of -- they are feasting this summit, and they found some hope in the korean peninsula that peace can actually be made in this korean peninsula. peter: very positive take. , donaldkarnitschnig trump the deal has scored a great victory in singapore. matthew: it may be too early to claim "great victory," but just the fact that, as i said, he got the north koreans to the table and they are discussing such sensitive issues or will be in the coming weeks is something that one should not downplay at this point. i think there is always a lot of skepticism. you hear these arguments, he is putting kim on a pedestal or allowing him to have this sort of perception that he is a world
leader, that he is legitimizing him. at the same time, i feel this is exactly what we have done with putin for years, and here we have a leader who is in many forle's view responsible using chemical weapons in syria, who has annexed crimea, as we know, who is fighting a war in ukraine, and in europe, nobody has a problem with talking to -- --peter: two wrongs make a right? matthew: i don't necessarily think two wrongs make a right, but if you argue that dialogue is the first step of diplomacy, you cannot go anywhere without first speaking to the other side. you have to ignore knowledge that north koreans have these nuclear weapons now, and we cannot change that. it's too late. the period where we can ignore americanprevious administrations did, essentially, thinking that we
will pressure them with sanctions, and a some point, they will come to the table -- that strategy did not work, and now we are at a stage where they are not just working on nuclear weapons. they don't have just one nuclear weapon. they apparently have an entire arsenal, and i think what trump has done is to basically acknowledge this reality and say we cannot pretend this is not the case anymore. we have to do with him, and if that means jim rising him, so be it. what is the negative consequence in the long term of legitimizing this regime? peter: sascha hach, i would be interested in your remarks. sascha: i agree that it is a historical meeting. i also agree it is great progress, and it's absolutely important to keep in touch -- peter: the world is a safer place? yesha: in a certain way, whouse who does not threat,
does not shoot but talk is certainly giving more security to the world. what i'm worrying about is how lasting -- how long this agreement or this declaration , and also, i would like to raise the question -- who is actually behind this cloud, or are there other actors who have contributed to this meeting? namely, the south korean prime jae-in, and also china in a certain way. we know kim jong-un has been tied to china before this meeting took place. we should not believe about trust too much in this two-men and kimt donald trump jong-un were presenting, but also consider all the relevant actors that played a main role
in the korean war and acknowledge that day from now on also have to be integrated in of peace in the region. it cannot be just an issuee between the u.s. and north korea, and second, we have to invent this declaration which is timending without any bound plan -- we have to embed this in public law so will you have a structure which makes this agreement -- which gives this agreement perspective, and the treaty we are proposing is the one of prohibition of nuclear weapons. i want to agree that china is involved, should be involved, but i don't think you can have lasting peace in korea without south korea, but south korea is really the one who has been pushing this. if you look at what president moon said when it looked like
the meeting was not going to happen and the south korean reaction -- i mean, they were absolutely central to this process. china, given that china is the country that enabled north korea to have these weapons in the first place, by standing by and allowing this nuclear program to progress, it is clear that this is all of one piece, but i think this is exactly what you want. you don't just want the united states and the north koreans to be sitting down at one table. russia is going to have to be involved in the process at some point, too, but in the end, if it does progress -- and in my view, this was just a first step, more of an icebreaker than anything. it would have been unrealistic to think that trump would have come out of that meeting with sort of a full-blown treaty that was ready to be signed, whereby the north koreans would be forgoing nuclear weapons hasver, but at least he created an atmosphere, it appears, where these negotiations can continue.
we have been here before the past, but i don't see any reason why we should not give the benefit of the doubt, and i think had it been a different president, if it were not trump, many of the criticisms that you are hearing now would not be out there. peter: let's just remind ourselves of where we have come from in the last couple of months. here are some images. >> the run up to the summit was horribly entertaining. >> little rocket man. little rocket man. rocket man is a sick puppy. >> kim was quick to shoot back. >> i will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged u.s. don't -- dotard with fire. >> they will be met with fire wororld hase the
never seen. >> the question of central concern -- who has the bigger and more powerful nuclear button? the two seem to get alongng, and they knonow how to put on a sho. >> everybody plays games. you know that. > are there wargames over now? peter: who should take the biggest credit for the breakthrough we have seen -- donald trump or somebody else? very: i think this is a guided question. however, to be honest, i would like to give the biggest credit ofpresident moon jae-in south korea because firstly, he has changed the game. he led the two koreas to be in the center of the negotiating table. now it's about -- it's not about other states talking about the
situation in the korean peninsula, but president moon jae-in has led the negotiations between the countries. second, i believe president moon jae-in has a big credit to continue this summit. the summit was about to be collapsed. however, he called north korea, kim jong-un, right away, and he talked with kim jong-un and negotiated with him and led north korea and the u.s. to finally meet together. will blackball or just be a show, as some people have that thehe fact meeting happened has a big historical perspective. peter: the situation has moved forward, but everybody says there are problems with the timetabling and especially with the details of this agreement. what is missing? sascha: it is missing concrete
disarmament steps and complete disarmament, but it's clear for this meeting nobody expected really that they could within the time they had have such a result. a legal we need now structure in which we integrate this peace process and this legal structure has to consider both sides, not only the north korean side when we are talking about the denuclearization of with only peninsula an obligation of declaration by north korea, but there is the protectingr umbrella south korea, which has a geopolitical impact on the whole region, so we also have to address this issue. that means we need a legal framework that integrates both sides, not only the nuclear weapon state, but the same state
umbrella andlear the only state i know which takes this into account as the new treaty y the prohihibitionf nuclear weapons, whihich also outlaws the threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear sharing, so this could be a framework or structure in which we could move forward. peter: how long would it take to put that framework in place? sincerely, i believe you have to take a long time to account -- peter: that is exactly what donald trump does not want. he wants this to happen quickly indeed. if it were possible for denuclearization to hapappen --i don't know if framework -- in a year? sascha: technically, yes. it is very easily possible to dismantle the nuclear weapons.
i think this is an important difference because i think the priority of south korea -- of course, they are threatened by the nuclear weapons, but they want to move forward with a peace process, and they are ok with a step-by-step approach. china is as well, and i think that we need time for such a disarmament process. we just need security and a sound, lasting framework. peter: it was interesting. at the press conference, donald trump, when asked about a timeline for any or all of this, he said he would like it to happen as fast as it can be done mechanically and physically. i thought it was very interesting. he also said it could actually happen within a year. it could even happen within a few months if you withdraw the warheads and bring them to the u.s. to dismantle them, but that's not a technical
question. it's a political question, and as long as nuclear weapons remain, the geopolitical center remain sold will attractive for countries to obtain and to talk to the most powerful man in the world, as we just saw it, as long as we do solve this geopolitical problem of status of nuclear weapons, we will not see north korea getting rid of its nuclear weapons very quickly because that is the very function of nuclear weapons for kim. peter: what can you tell us to help us understand the man or get closer to the man? dahye: i don't personally know him, but i feel personally he was quite genuine and consistent with what he really wants. north korea wants their regime to be acknowledged and protected. that is the number one priority for them. we have to really think about
why they are trying to possess weapons.op nuclear is it because they want to make a war against the other countries? it's obvious that they cannot really win the war, so it's just their own button or leverage for the status quo and for north korea to be stabilized.. if we acknowledge north korea at the same level, then north korea forward the denuclearization process, and in this sense, i found that kim jong-un was quite genuine in his way during the last two summits, and what i find from him is that he is eager for peace in the korean peninsula. denuclearize nuclear weapons if his regime is protected and if north korean security can be protected, so in verysense, i find him positive toward the peace regime and the korean peninsula and also in the global society, and
also, he is quite eager to denuclearize the nuclear weapons in north korea.. problem infound a many media and public opinions. they only put conditions for denuclearization. they only focus on denuclearization of north korea. why don't they put any conditions for u.s. or the other countries not to intervene with the regime or not to propagate them any more? should viewpoints actually change in order for this summit or in order for this agreement to last long. there are so many suspicions purpose,m jong-un's which he never said about, then this agreement will not last long, of course, and of course,
the peace regime cannot last long. peter: interesting insight. despite all that, the fact remains chairman kim of north korea is without doubt an autocrat, a desperate -- and thee -- despot, question is will he survive the transformation that now looks possible on the korean peninsula? >> the region is one of the world's most heavily militarized, and north korea nuclear weapons. kim jong-un is unpredictable, and it's not clear how firm his grip on power really is. upon assuming power, kim jong-un was quick to do away with perceived threats, such as his uncle who was arrested, .ubjected to a show trial
north korea presents itself as a model communist state, cautiously opening up to the outside world. behind the scenes, however, famine, torture, labor camps, according to people who managed to flee. what does kim really want you peter: good question. what does kim really want? matthew: i tend to think he wants a deal, and i think it is important to remember this is an autocratic regime. some would say it's a rogue regime. if you look at what they've done in the past, counterfeiting u.s. currency, which was a huge operation they undertook, or the cyber warfare they have engaged in, it's clear that this nuclear push that they have undertaken over the past couple of decades is aimed at at some point getting something back. although a lot of people laugh at trump and this dealmaking sort of aura that he tries to project, he might have found the
one country where this could actually work, and i think you felt that a little bit at this summit. kim came in on, a chinese airliner. it shows that this is not a country that is particularly wealthy in reality, that has the kind of resources that it would like to have. he made a big deal about seeing trump's limousine of this kind of thing. i think it's the kind of leader where trump's approach to diplomacy, as it were, could actually work. peter: if kim once a deal, does he want a deal where he keeps nuclear weapons or where he loses nuclear weapons? a deal: he will not get if he doesn't lose nuclear weapons. i think he will prefer to keep the nuclear weapons -- peter: how can he survive in that scenario? matthew: if he agrees to open up north korea and get some economic benefits in return for giving up the nuclear weapons,,
which is exactly what trump has offered him, then he will have something that he can sell to the rest of the regime. it is important to remember there is this whole class of leaders in north korea behind him. i thought it was interesting in the run-up to the summit that he ,ired a couple of top generals which many thought of as an indication that not everybody is really on board with this plan, but, you know, clearly, he is the man in control, he and his sister, and they are pushing this through, and i don't think that they would have embarked on this course and gone this far if they were not really willing to give something up. peter: how similar is the situation in korea today to the situation in germany back in the 1980's -- the late 1980's? i know it's a tough question, but i'm very interested in what you had to say. sascha: i was very young in the late 1980's in germany.
talked about how the situation is very different than my point of view, so economically speaking, politically speaking, we cannot also withe two, and regard to nuclear weapons and the role of nuclear weapons, also, the international line structure was different if we compare germany to korea today. would still like to promote or keep in mind is that the german example shows , even for is hope cases which seem desperate, and without hope. the perspective that we have now that the talk continues with complete trust measures, for example, with the bodies of the remnants of the north korean war being moved, repatriated, which
means talks and meetings will continue. this perspective, i think it gives truly hope. to the people of north and south korea want reunification you can do they still want reunification? dahye: we had a provincial election yesterday, and 14 out the7 provinces voted for democratic party, which is the party of president moon, and it shows how much support are given by the citizens of korea for the reunification. we have to accept that we do not that much north korea because we are only watching the news that are filtered by the media and by the majorities, so we have to listen carefully of what really north korea wants and what they really want to pursue, and this is the only way
that we can step towards peace, and this is what i really want to say. peter: i watched a fellow journalist walk along the present and we wondered if it would disappear in our lifetimes, and each of us said maybe if we are very lucky indeed. within a year, it had gone. how soon do you think we would seem reunification? in your lifetime? before i pass away. i want to see the reunification process, of course, but i think it's dangerous if you make it to quit because we have to have some steps before we make the real -- before we make. if occasion. peter: thank you for joining me. thank you for watching and please come back next week. goodbye and tschuss.
village in georgia where warm water is now on tap thanks to the sun. in ecuador, entrepreneurs are developing ways to make shrimp farming more environmentally friendly. and we go to california to meet a woman who, despite having a job, can't afford her own four walls. with a gdp of over $19 trillion, the u.s. was the world's