tv Worlds Apart RT June 10, 2018 2:30pm-3:01pm EDT
singapore doubts still persist over whether the meeting will take place at all let alone what could come out of it what it did bastien the worst possible outcomes well to discuss that i'm now joined by mark on the line a lot of her at the school of international relations the university of southern california mr millenniums good to talk to you thank you very much for your time thank you for inviting me now there is a strong belief among american policymakers especially those who used to work for previous administrations that presidential summits are supposed to be the culmination of a long arduous diplomatic process rather than the beginning of it do you think this convention applies to tromp at all i basically agree with this position i mean usually the high level summit comes at the end of the negotiation process so i'm not sure in this case it was just the situation from the president to me right away or it's it was part of a broader strategy of the administration but certainly this is a breakthrough in the relations between the united states and north korea so it's
certainly unconventional in diplomatic practices but it can be a very important opportunity for both countries and for the whole region that you mentioned a possibility that this could be part of a broader strategy on the part of the trumpet ministration and from what we understand there have been some preliminary torts but hardly over technical nature the negotiators most likely simply didn't have time to get into the needed greedy of technical specifications of the north korean nuclear program does it even matter is it even necessary in this particular case whatever the result of the singapore summit isn't it likely to be mostly political rather than technical well i think through the negotiations been taking place are more technical than political for sure this is part of a broader strategy on the side of north korea that's for sure they sort of the diplomatic offensive in january. for the part of the united states i'm not sure if
it's part of the brother strategy what i think is that donald trump really wants this summit especially to. find a way a chance to break with the previous administration of the previews american administration that obviously failed. in dealing with the north korean issue so i think that for trump this can be a breakthrough with the past well let's explore the motivations of both leaders a little bit more i've heard one american experts suggest that kim and trump are preparing for totally different games ciampa said to be gearing up for a game of checkers while kiam is supposed to be positioning himself for a multiplayer multi board chaffed match do you agree that they approach did this meeting in totally different way i agree with that because concern going clearly started to play. this game with different actors not only with the united states
and this is particularly clear if we take a look at what happened in the past few months can turn started with the olympic diplomacy in young tying in two thousand in favor of easier and then him at twice with president xi jinping he met with the russian foreign minister recently surveyed said gay lover of you met with the south korean president twice in the last month so i think that for a can some going is clearly a broader strategy not only toward the united states but towards the region as a whole as for trump i'm not sure that this is that as a strategy like this this broad strategy this grand strategy toward north korea and the trumpeting assertion was certainly kim is playing a game with multiple actors and my opinion is that he is playing a very good game so far. whether or not something comes out of this finger poor summit i think we can already say that it's going to be history in the making by
the mere fact of its occurrence as being the first such meeting between an elf korean leader and a sitting u.s. president and it is very easy to see how it would benefit mr kim by allowing him to project himself as an equal of essentially but i simply cannot see how it would benefit donald trump what do you think trump is hoping to get out of it well that's a very good question i'm not sure i think that this summit will be for sure and historical breakthrough and it will be a great photo opportunity for both leaders mainly for clinton good but also for donald trump because just think about what happened in the past few weeks when people were talking about donald trump winning the nobel peace prize for this historical summit so i'm i'm sure that won't donald trump wants from this summit is . a victory in diplomacy that he can tweet easily because that's very important for him and for for his supporters within the united states in terms of practical
gains i think that now the focus has a little bit shifted from the complete verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of the nuclear program to something different more gradual and last week donald trump well after meeting with north korea and high official kim young told said that. the summit will focus also on sign a peace treaty to end the korean war so i think that the political and diplomatic level donald trump will focus on the spark of signing starting the negotiation for signing a peace treaty with with north korea but i don't think that the complete verifiable and irreversible denuclearization will still be the number one priority as jumbo. in the past weeks from what are you are saying it looks like tron despite all of the us my behind him is in the somewhat weaker position compared to him because
actually still has to produce something as a result of this meeting as opposed to kim who is benefiting or scoring already by having trump to fly all the way to singapore yeah that's that's completely true i mean i think the concern going already won a lot from this negotiation with the united states if we just think about the maximum pressure a policy of the united states or the sanctions through the u.n. security council and bilateral sanctions from the united states the situation is very different today i mean a couple of days ago donald trump said i don't want to talk anymore about maximum pressure because now things are going very well we're getting along with north korea so i don't want to use this to anyone anymore at the same time i'm very sure that after the summit even if nothing comes out in practical terms south korea and china and probably russia too will start to push for lifting or reducing some of
the sanctions because north korea demonstrated in some way that is willing to negotiate about the nuclear program so i think that for kim is already a big win because it it really waken this very united front of sanctions against north korea so that's already a very big win for him now i don't know if you would agree with me but i think one of the reasons trump may be scaling down on these strategy of maximum pressure is because it's already backfiring on him if there is any deal reached in singapore i suspect it needs to look dramatic and pompous enough to be commensurate with trump's own bravado is north korea even in the position to give these wide how's the kind of deal that it can parade as a as an obvious victory of donald trump's jenius i think the trump is of is in a difficult position today because. it is not easy to sell something as a victory after this summit for him especially after what happened with iran's il
so now all part of the public opinion and also the republican establishment in the sea a respect thing something more than the deal from north korea so i think it's not in a good position donald trump today to a victory out of the summit but at the same time i think that his is showmanship in a way can help him even if the practical result the political results of the summit are not going to be very good i think that he can use this summit the photo opportunity of this oracle breakthrough and all this kind of symbolic meaning of the summit to sell it as a win in the united states now this war did you kill it didn't you clear eyes ation seems to be bandied about a lot but i heard a number of experts suggest that what pyongyang means by it is very different from washington's understanding that kiev would easily denuclearized if it simply manned abandoning nuclear weapons under article six of the n.p.t.
is something that the united states for example did before but that would hardly bring and to the north korean nuclear program what do you think do they actually mean the same thing when they talk about denuclearization well i don't think they mean the same thing with very different way we can interpret the idea of denuclearization john bolton made clear that weeks ago it was thinking about the libya model than donald trump decided that it was not a viable option saw the change this position of of john bolton i think that. for concern north korea the nuclearization at least in the first stages of the process can mean to stop the tests nuclear tests intercontinental missile tests and freeze the force. well it is that they have they i think this is an achievable goal on one side on the other side i think that giving up what they already have
the nuclear weapons that they already possess would be much more difficult so i think that the of the real problem in terms of negotiation will be what to do with the nuclear weapons that north korea already has is north korea ready to give up what they really have or not now the north has always argued that if washington expects it to eliminate its nuclear stockpiles it will have to lead the way it will have to abandon this hostile policy possibly even going to mix actions decrease its military presence in south korea and japan is the united states flexible on any of those two points and the reason i'm asking is because during the previous administrations the answer would have been a definite no but with champ it's not bad simple and it's not that clear i can easily imagine him trying to play that angle to get more concessions or get more money from american allies be it south korea or japan and at the same time solid as
a concession to north korea well i think that. flexibility will be the key word for this process for this negotiation i'm not sure how much the american administration is ready to be flexible on this bus for sure flexibility on both sides will be the key award because. usually people focus on the military security aspect of the nuclear weapons so north korea wants a guy ritchie from the united states that the united states will not attack the regime with nuclear and they're going to be consummated no guarantee of being fulfilled right of course of course i mean probably some kind of consciousness or a confidence building measure like scaled down the joint exercises with south korea will be a sign of goodwill or also a peace treaty will be a very important. sign of goodwill towards this reassurance but this is just part of the problem because for north korea today the economic development is as
important as the nuclear development this is made this very clear when he launched his political line called the engine based on two pillars nuclear weapons and economic development so i think that they could also taking care of their own people and the economic development of the counter is important for can some go and he wants something on this from the summit and i don't mean all the aid and assistance and energy supplies like happened like what happened in the past because for real development they don't need aid and assistance they need the sanctions to be lifted they need more cooperation with neighboring countries especially russia china south korea on economy terms of all these as to be managed directly from the regime because the regime doesn't want that economic development and could undermine in some way the stability of the country well mr maloney we have to take a very short break now but we will be back in just a few moments statement. below
you don't consume and do. their own think on the person in that are equal to tens of thousands only consistence can manage and. don't need and. welcome back to worlds apart with mark a millennial lecturer at the school of international relations university of southern california similarly i just before the break he said there is no way the north korean regime can abandon its nuclear program that would be tantamount to
a political suicide especially after what happened to more market offie in libya in the absence of dov option oh what is there a laugh to possibly satisfy him not only own ego but also hawks bid and he's administration. thus that's a very interesting question i mean i'm not sure how much divisions are there within the administration that's for sure people like john bolton for example they're very all cash perspective on north korea so i think that. for the negotiation the most important part on this will be how trump will manage how trump will manage the situation and will try to find the balance between the hoke. part of his administration and a credible. negotiation process with north korea because north korea made the ready clear they have some red line so they are not going to cross in any way so i think
that for trump will be extremely difficult to strike a balance between achieving some results with north korea and satisfy the work part of his that means for now i heard you say before that the united states cannot really afford a military option in north korea and this is exactly what mr bolton has advocated as he always does you just mentioned these striking a balance between you know rational in the rational part of the. chump administration would be a challenge but i wonder if you are perhaps overestimating. the reliance of these administration on the careful and malices and the careful weighing of all of its options. yeah i mean i don't think that the military option is an option and it's never been a real option i think that when trump started with his inflammatory rhetoric last year i think that it was mainly to try to play the card of the madman like richard
nixon tried to do in the seventy's but everybody knows that there's a deterrence a liberal in place on the peninsula between the united states and north korea united states and its allies south korea and japan and north korea so i don't think that the military option is really an option is never been a real option the fact is that after a couple of months of verify amatory rhetoric and threat of use of force donald trump backed down from this position if we take a look at the speech of the u.n. national general assembly september and then the speech of the trump gave the south korean national assembly in the van der it's a very different speech nor for us of use of force focus on the development of north korea the abuses the abuse of human rights of course but there were no threat of use of force so i think that he really backed down from his options like months ago now speaking about inflammatory rhetoric i think this is a very peculiar thing about donald trump he can be very aggressive when he's on
social media but i think he's also. malleable to personal touch and a number of american partners like israel for example have already exploited this trade in his personality do you think do you think i can john only will try to leverage this because he obviously does not come across as a people to charm or do you think he will put any effort into trying to win trump's sympathy i think so i think that donald trump is really confident about his capacities ability to persuade people and the power of his personality and all this kind of things i'm not really sure of this is a great asset for the current administration. but he really believes in that and i'm sure the kids and then will try to play this card will try to give donald trump something he can tweet he can show to the public opinion so he can he can show to everyone look i'm the first one and the one role of the art of the deal and the
first one can make a deal with this guy we're every other american president before me failed i succeeded so i think that concern going will play this card just like being dead in december because trump is very very confident in his personality and this can undermine his negotiating position not strengthen it now speaking about negotiating positions both you and many others have remarked that what north korea is really seeking is the recognition of its nuclear capabilities and so far other players including russia i sat on denying it got recognition partially due to reluctance of encouraging similar behavior in others and yet i've heard x.-plane say that in its efforts to be you know recognized and included in this group of big boys so to say north korea is already making big moves off their recognized nuclear states and pride oxic late already has had a certain restraining
a fact that we've already heard pledges of testing freezes no first use plaids no a transfer pledge is that not an argument for giving north korea the recognition it seeks for the very specific purpose of courage ing more responsibility on its part that's that's completely true i mean if we took a look at the statements on from the north korean regime in the last four or five years they always always and for size the point of the nuclear program is for defensive reasons that they're not going to proliferate they will be a responsible nuclear power all this kind of thing so this clearly goes in the direction that north korean regime wants to be in the club of nuclear powers of course. not with official. legal recognition like the five hours in the nonproliferation treaty but i think that the regime is thinking something about the position like india or pakistan so i think the final goal of the regime is
to play this role of a sort of responsible mine or nuclear power so we have some nuclear weapons we are not going to build more we're going to we're not going to test more we're not going to proliferate will but we'll be responsible but we will keep what we have right now i think this is the one of the goals of the regime now when i put that question to russian experts they usually reply that this approach. is problematic because it provides the positive reinforcement of blackmail strategies north korea may not use its bombs but it may continue using. threats and trading it for us for example the threat of nuclear proliferation and transferring that technology to somebody else and you pointed out that it wants to be like india and pakistan but india and pakistan are not in the same economic condition as north korea you know they have either a bargaining tool so the question then my question to you is how would you draw the line between a deterring being simply a deterrent a military means for dissuading
a possible attack as opposed to a deterring being a negotiating tool dottie's brought into every single conversation well i think that to avoid this problem the most important thing will be to try to create more economic cooperation with north korea because if north korea doesn't have a reason to blackmail the other countries international community they're not going to do that so if they want to develop develop their economy they need less sanctions they need to cooperate more with especially with neighboring countries so my opinion is that if this process leads to. some sort of partial integration of north korea into the regional community or international community especially in economic terms this problem of proliferation of blackmailing will not be a problem anymore so i think that to avoid this we should focus on more cooperation
exchanges and creating networks with north korea not less not more isolation i think this will be an interesting path forward now many western experts say that would replied that increasing economic cooperation with north korea easing sanctions would play into the hands of the regime and strengthen its grip on power which i find a little bit contrary to to perhaps because of delayed salvi experience because from my country's history we know that in a tightly sealed systems those kind of economic reforms usually work against the regime rather than for it what do you think well i think that first the first question that we have to ask is what do we want from north korea so if we're focusing on the nuclear threat limiting or eliminating the nuclear threat that's one issue if the issue is to change the regime in north korea that's another issue completely different so if you're thinking if the u.s.
or the international community is thinking of putting more pressure on the regime to eventually lead to the collapse of the regime of course cooperation will not work but if we want to limit or eliminate the nuclear threat i think that more cooperation is going to work and of course we have the case of the soviet union for example but if we think of other countries with close room and authoritarian regimes for of that for example like china or vietnam we see that there are possibilities for increasing economic cooperation with this to be allies in the regime so it's very important to made clear what the point is we want get rid of nuclear weapons or the nuclear threat or do we want to the collapse of the regime and. change the regime in north korea that's a very important one for me mr miller i am sure you know that the americans usually are one to everything but the kitchen sink but putting that aside i want to explore this angle of the soviet transformation because it actually you know that the
soviet nuclear arsenal survived the political changes in the former soviet union but it's regime didn't and all i mean did lead to solve itself was were far more sophisticated and more plentiful than north korean stockpiles but my question is whether the north korean nuclear ambitions a likely to cause the kids dynasty suppose there is a regime change do you think that would put an end to the nuclear ambitions or do you think it may last a little bit longer well i think that it's very difficult that a regime any kind of regime will get rid of nuclear weapons at the ready pulls us so i don't think that with a sudden regime change a new regime will get rid of nuclear weapons that's one thing and the other thing is that there's not i don't think that is in the interest of the international community right now a sudden change of regime in north korea because who knows what what's going to happen next i mean right now the regime is relatively stable and they can control
the nuclear materials but with an uncontrolled collapse or sudden regime change who's going to take care of the nuclear weapons china and the united states who knows what's going to happen instability can be very very dangerous in this situation so i think that at least in the short term is not in the interest of any of the parties involved some kind of uncontrolled. the stability of the regime in north korea now this kind of argument that the you just laid out i think we'll find a lot of agreement in beijing i also heard you say about the chinese do not particularly like kim jong un but they valued the stability. regime brings and to me about sounds a little. it's like russia's positioning busy syria and my last question i guess during the show is do you think beijing is prepared to invest militarily in north korea the same way that russia is investing militarily in syria if it finds its
interests they are threatened well i think that with a very dangerous the stability. of the regime china will want to intervene in north korea because with a big this civilization of the regime probably the united states well or with the american forces will come from the south and i think that in this situation china will want to be involved minute militarily on the peninsula for sure but. there are no disabilities a show of the regime i don't think that china wants to get involved militarily in north korea well mr no i mean we have to leave it there i really appreciate your time and i also hold our viewers can keep this conversation going on our social media pages as funny hold this here again same place same time here on the walls apart.
good food both bring people together and i'm sure that this vocal baby of that exceptional good will go on the field of play but also for the image food for the fifo of the mitchell for a ship to show that they able to organize a vote up. when a loved one is murdered it's natural to seek the death penalty for the murder i would prefer and it mean when the death penalty just because i think that's the fair think the right thing research shows that for every nine executions one convict is found innocent the idea that we were executing innocent people is
terrifying there's just no way that hasn't been that we hear even many victims' families want the death penalty to be abolished the reason we have to keep the death penalty here is because that's what murder victim's families what that's going to give them peace that's going to give them justice and we come in and say. not quite enough we've been through this this isn't the way. for man or sitting in a car when the phipps gets shot in the head. all four have different versions of what happened one of them is on the death row there's no way he could have done it there's no possible way because the us did not share around a corner. store with. the
g seven saw. it sees a major rift open between the u.s. and the rest of the pack with donald trump retracting his support for the joint statement the meeting is in disarray and growing tensions with washington rules faced an older. the challenge fades from a market to go on to the u.s. maybe the american president doesn't mind being isolated today but we also don't mind being six if need be. the stories that shape the week the pentagon and the civilian death toll in syria may never be known after being accused of possible war crimes that. the world cup gets underway moscow with four days left until the biggest event kicks off in russia.