Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview with Peter Brookes
Aired December 27, 2002 - 07:06 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: We want to ask the question now: What is the next move for the U.S. and the international community? For that, we're going to turn to Peter Brookes, senior fellow with the Heritage Foundation, also a former deputy assistant secretary of state for Asian and Pacific Affairs.
Peter, good morning. Thanks for joining us.
PETER BROOKES, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Good morning, Daryn.
KAGAN: Very important news this morning that these UN monitors are being kicked out of North Korea. What do you make of this development?
BROOKES: Well, I think this is the next step in brinksmanship on the part of North Korea. They opened -- they brought the fuel rods back, they opened the reactors, and they left the IAEA inspectors in there for a while, so that the world would know exactly what they were doing. Now, it becomes a little bit more opaque, but I think this is the next step in escalating on the side of rhetoric and some actions on the part of North Korea in trying to force the United States back to the negotiating table.
KAGAN: Well, and is that exactly where the U.S. should be going? Or should they call the bluff?
BROOKES: Well, I think the administration's declaratory policy on this in requiring North Korea to retrench on its nuclear program. Remember, North Korea is in violation of four international agreements -- the Nonproliferation Treaty, an agreement with us, the agreed framework for 1994, and two other agreements -- not to pursue nuclear weapons.
So, I think it's hard to get back involved with them in another agreement when they are already in violation of one agreement. Where is the level of trust?
KAGAN: Well, so you just leave them out there to do what they want without UN weapons inspectors there, without anybody at the bargaining table?
BROOKES: No, absolutely not.
KAGAN: The idea of what they could come up with is absolutely frightening.
BROOKES: Well, we've got some time. Remember, it is going to take several months before they can actually move forward on this program again. These facilities have been in hibernation since 1994, so it's eight or so years. It's going to take them some time.
We have opportunities for diplomacy here, and we should exercise those. The United States is talking with China. I believe that Assistant Secretary of State Jim Kelly will go to South Korea next week. Remember, they just had elections. There's a new president, and he will be coming in, in February. We have to talk with them. We're working with our Japanese counterparts. The Russians also have a place to play here, as well as even the EU and other parts of the international community, including the UN. Next week, the IAEA, the international inspection agency for nuclear issues, is going to go to the UN and make a report.
So, there's a lot of things going on. We shouldn't get too caught up in the public rhetoric. There's a lot of things going on behind the scenes diplomatically and quietly that could be very productive.
KAGAN: But real quickly, Peter, I want to bring you back to some of those countries you just mentioned. We just heard Sohn Jie-Ae report that China is none too pleased with the U.S. You also mentioned South Korea. There is a strong anti-American feeling in that country. And Japan, not entirely enthusiastic about being aggressive with North Korea either.
BROOKES: Well, there are some real challenges out there. Everybody has interests, and the interests are not always the same. Obviously China borders North Korea. They don't really want to see a nuclear state on their border there. They don't want to see a war there again like we saw in the '50s.
You know, Japan has concerns, because North Korea has missiles pointed at Japan. North Korea could go nuclear. That would certainly cause it -- you know, change the security situation there.
And in South Korea, we have a new government, and there has been some recent flare-up of anti-American sentiment.
So, each country, including the United States and Russia, all have different sort of interests, although we really -- everybody's fundamental interest is peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, and not seeing North Korea become a nuclear state.
KAGAN: All right. So, if that's what the U.S. should do, what about the United Nations?
BROOKES: Well, the United Nations is going to have to look at this. Remember, North Korea is in violation of two UN agreements. One is the -- in 1985, they signed a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the NPT, which said that we will only use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. They're also in violation of the 1992 IAEA safeguards agreement, which allows the inspectors to be there to monitor, to ensure that they are not pursuing a weapons program.
So, the United Nations could -- they will come there. They could even -- the United Nations could implement sanctions. There's a number of things that the United Nations could do. It could implement economic sanctions against North Korea if they see they're in violation of these agreements. But we're not at that point now. We expect that on January 6, ElBaradei, who is very famous for his involvement in the Iraqi program -- or the Iraqi inspection program, will go to the United Nations and make a report.
But the fact that North Korea has kicked out the inspectors will make this much more opaque. It will be much more difficult to see what's actually going on.
KAGAN: And just real quickly, which is the bigger problem right now, North Korea or Iraq?
BROOKES: I have said publicly I think Iraq still is, because I think we're running out of time on diplomacy there. And I also see that Saddam Hussein is an expansionist, he's aggressive. And I think -- you know, you're talking about a snake -- two types of snakes. You know, a rattlesnake and a cobra, which is more dangerous? But I think the more clear and present danger after the war on terrorism is Iraq, and then followed by North Korea.
KAGAN: And explain to me exactly why, how you see that Iraq is a bigger problem. If you actually have a country like North Korea moving in these fuel rods within a month or a couple of months able to have more nuclear weapons. How is that not a bigger problem than Iraq?
BROOKES: Well, because I think the difference of threat comes from the capabilities and intent of the leader, and I think that Saddam Hussein is much more dangerous. I see that Kim Jong Il is more worried about the survival of the regime. I don't see him as expansionist. I see Saddam Hussein as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar, who -- the Babylonian king, who defeated biblical Israel. He wants to unite the Arab people of the Gulf under himself. He's invaded Iran, he's invaded Kuwait, he could invade Saudi Arabia, even Jordan. And I see him as expansionist. I see him as a megalomaniac.
So, I think that's the difference. They're both very dangerous, they're both significant regional threats, but I see Saddam Hussein as more dangerous and more aggressive than Kim Jong Il for expansion.
KAGAN: Peter Brookes with the Heritage Foundation, thank you for your insights this morning.
BROOKES: Thank you, Daryn.
KAGAN: We appreciate it.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
Aired December 27, 2002 - 07:06 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: We want to ask the question now: What is the next move for the U.S. and the international community? For that, we're going to turn to Peter Brookes, senior fellow with the Heritage Foundation, also a former deputy assistant secretary of state for Asian and Pacific Affairs.
Peter, good morning. Thanks for joining us.
PETER BROOKES, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Good morning, Daryn.
KAGAN: Very important news this morning that these UN monitors are being kicked out of North Korea. What do you make of this development?
BROOKES: Well, I think this is the next step in brinksmanship on the part of North Korea. They opened -- they brought the fuel rods back, they opened the reactors, and they left the IAEA inspectors in there for a while, so that the world would know exactly what they were doing. Now, it becomes a little bit more opaque, but I think this is the next step in escalating on the side of rhetoric and some actions on the part of North Korea in trying to force the United States back to the negotiating table.
KAGAN: Well, and is that exactly where the U.S. should be going? Or should they call the bluff?
BROOKES: Well, I think the administration's declaratory policy on this in requiring North Korea to retrench on its nuclear program. Remember, North Korea is in violation of four international agreements -- the Nonproliferation Treaty, an agreement with us, the agreed framework for 1994, and two other agreements -- not to pursue nuclear weapons.
So, I think it's hard to get back involved with them in another agreement when they are already in violation of one agreement. Where is the level of trust?
KAGAN: Well, so you just leave them out there to do what they want without UN weapons inspectors there, without anybody at the bargaining table?
BROOKES: No, absolutely not.
KAGAN: The idea of what they could come up with is absolutely frightening.
BROOKES: Well, we've got some time. Remember, it is going to take several months before they can actually move forward on this program again. These facilities have been in hibernation since 1994, so it's eight or so years. It's going to take them some time.
We have opportunities for diplomacy here, and we should exercise those. The United States is talking with China. I believe that Assistant Secretary of State Jim Kelly will go to South Korea next week. Remember, they just had elections. There's a new president, and he will be coming in, in February. We have to talk with them. We're working with our Japanese counterparts. The Russians also have a place to play here, as well as even the EU and other parts of the international community, including the UN. Next week, the IAEA, the international inspection agency for nuclear issues, is going to go to the UN and make a report.
So, there's a lot of things going on. We shouldn't get too caught up in the public rhetoric. There's a lot of things going on behind the scenes diplomatically and quietly that could be very productive.
KAGAN: But real quickly, Peter, I want to bring you back to some of those countries you just mentioned. We just heard Sohn Jie-Ae report that China is none too pleased with the U.S. You also mentioned South Korea. There is a strong anti-American feeling in that country. And Japan, not entirely enthusiastic about being aggressive with North Korea either.
BROOKES: Well, there are some real challenges out there. Everybody has interests, and the interests are not always the same. Obviously China borders North Korea. They don't really want to see a nuclear state on their border there. They don't want to see a war there again like we saw in the '50s.
You know, Japan has concerns, because North Korea has missiles pointed at Japan. North Korea could go nuclear. That would certainly cause it -- you know, change the security situation there.
And in South Korea, we have a new government, and there has been some recent flare-up of anti-American sentiment.
So, each country, including the United States and Russia, all have different sort of interests, although we really -- everybody's fundamental interest is peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, and not seeing North Korea become a nuclear state.
KAGAN: All right. So, if that's what the U.S. should do, what about the United Nations?
BROOKES: Well, the United Nations is going to have to look at this. Remember, North Korea is in violation of two UN agreements. One is the -- in 1985, they signed a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the NPT, which said that we will only use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. They're also in violation of the 1992 IAEA safeguards agreement, which allows the inspectors to be there to monitor, to ensure that they are not pursuing a weapons program.
So, the United Nations could -- they will come there. They could even -- the United Nations could implement sanctions. There's a number of things that the United Nations could do. It could implement economic sanctions against North Korea if they see they're in violation of these agreements. But we're not at that point now. We expect that on January 6, ElBaradei, who is very famous for his involvement in the Iraqi program -- or the Iraqi inspection program, will go to the United Nations and make a report.
But the fact that North Korea has kicked out the inspectors will make this much more opaque. It will be much more difficult to see what's actually going on.
KAGAN: And just real quickly, which is the bigger problem right now, North Korea or Iraq?
BROOKES: I have said publicly I think Iraq still is, because I think we're running out of time on diplomacy there. And I also see that Saddam Hussein is an expansionist, he's aggressive. And I think -- you know, you're talking about a snake -- two types of snakes. You know, a rattlesnake and a cobra, which is more dangerous? But I think the more clear and present danger after the war on terrorism is Iraq, and then followed by North Korea.
KAGAN: And explain to me exactly why, how you see that Iraq is a bigger problem. If you actually have a country like North Korea moving in these fuel rods within a month or a couple of months able to have more nuclear weapons. How is that not a bigger problem than Iraq?
BROOKES: Well, because I think the difference of threat comes from the capabilities and intent of the leader, and I think that Saddam Hussein is much more dangerous. I see that Kim Jong Il is more worried about the survival of the regime. I don't see him as expansionist. I see Saddam Hussein as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar, who -- the Babylonian king, who defeated biblical Israel. He wants to unite the Arab people of the Gulf under himself. He's invaded Iran, he's invaded Kuwait, he could invade Saudi Arabia, even Jordan. And I see him as expansionist. I see him as a megalomaniac.
So, I think that's the difference. They're both very dangerous, they're both significant regional threats, but I see Saddam Hussein as more dangerous and more aggressive than Kim Jong Il for expansion.
KAGAN: Peter Brookes with the Heritage Foundation, thank you for your insights this morning.
BROOKES: Thank you, Daryn.
KAGAN: We appreciate it.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
