Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview With Daniel Poneman, Former NSC Official
Aired January 13, 2003 - 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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Joining us now from another part of Washington to talk about the North Korean situation, Daniel Poneman, a former National Security Council official, who actually helped negotiate the 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea.
Good morning -- thanks so much for joining us, sir.
DANIEL PONEMAN, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Pleasure.
ZAHN: What do you make of what Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly is saying about the possibility of offering some kind of energy assistance if the North Koreans stop this nuclear program?
PONEMAN: I think it's a good sign. The fact of the matter is, if you want to have a diplomatic solution, you need to show the North Koreans some form of an exit ramp. We have now been on a course where we're trying to show an increasing degree of pressure on them, and the North Koreans have shown a response to that by just continuing their defiance, because there has been, from their perspective, no real incentive, no track out of the crisis. At the same time, we've made it clear that the military option is off the table, so there's no pressure on them from that direction either.
I heard Assistant Secretary Kelly's remarks as offering at least the prospect of a new approach.
ZAHN: When you say you think it's hopeful that the Bush administration is offering an exit ramp, you no doubt know they've also been saying they're not going to engage in any sort of nuclear blackmail here.
I wanted to share with our audience something that one of the president's spokespersons had to say last week about what he calls a consistent pattern of fits being thrown by North Korea -- let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think it's fair to say that when you look at the history of North Korea in its dealings with multiple nations around the world, their approach is that the worse they act, the more they get. And that's an approach that this administration will not be a party to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: So, how do you read through what's political posturing and what's not on the part of the North Koreans?
PONEMAN: Well, there's always an intense degree of political posturing. I noted in this morning's news the references, once again, to a "sea of fire" the North Koreans were threatening to impose.
You have to respond in a tough manner to that. The last time in March of 1994, when they leveled a threat about a sea of fire to the South Koreans, we responded by deploying patriot (ph) to South Korea.
It seems to me you have to look beyond the rhetoric and look to the structure of the situation, present the North Koreans with a clear choice. Through one path lies a diplomatic solution, lies the potential of energy, as the assistant secretary just indicated. But the other path has to be a tough path that shows if they continue their defiance, there actually is a penalty.
I believe it's critical for the United States, in order to make that second path viable, to show there's pressure on Pyongyang to comply, to at least try the first path in good faith; otherwise, we will not be able to convince our allies to go along with us to a tougher course.
ZAHN: In closing this morning, when you talk about the second path, are you talking economic sanctions, or are you talking military action?
PONEMAN: At this point, I think we have to be very clear about certain red lines. I believe that, for example, the movement of the spent fuel in the pond (ph), the 8,000 rods that North Korea already has containing five to six bombs' worth of plutonium, moving that into the reprocessing facility could create a significant and lasting threat to the United States and its allies. For that kind of threat, I believe we need to have a military option at least available to us. I don't believe sanctions per se will get us either to a military solution or to a diplomatic solution. They may, however, provide some pressure to lead to either one.
ZAHN: Mr. Poneman, we're going to have to leave it there this morning. Thank you very much for your insights -- appreciate your time this morning.
PONEMAN: Thank you.
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 January 13, 2003 - 07:06 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Joining us now from another part of Washington to talk about the North Korean situation, Daniel Poneman, a former National Security Council official, who actually helped negotiate the 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea.
Good morning -- thanks so much for joining us, sir.
DANIEL PONEMAN, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Pleasure.
ZAHN: What do you make of what Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly is saying about the possibility of offering some kind of energy assistance if the North Koreans stop this nuclear program?
PONEMAN: I think it's a good sign. The fact of the matter is, if you want to have a diplomatic solution, you need to show the North Koreans some form of an exit ramp. We have now been on a course where we're trying to show an increasing degree of pressure on them, and the North Koreans have shown a response to that by just continuing their defiance, because there has been, from their perspective, no real incentive, no track out of the crisis. At the same time, we've made it clear that the military option is off the table, so there's no pressure on them from that direction either.
I heard Assistant Secretary Kelly's remarks as offering at least the prospect of a new approach.
ZAHN: When you say you think it's hopeful that the Bush administration is offering an exit ramp, you no doubt know they've also been saying they're not going to engage in any sort of nuclear blackmail here.
I wanted to share with our audience something that one of the president's spokespersons had to say last week about what he calls a consistent pattern of fits being thrown by North Korea -- let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think it's fair to say that when you look at the history of North Korea in its dealings with multiple nations around the world, their approach is that the worse they act, the more they get. And that's an approach that this administration will not be a party to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: So, how do you read through what's political posturing and what's not on the part of the North Koreans?
PONEMAN: Well, there's always an intense degree of political posturing. I noted in this morning's news the references, once again, to a "sea of fire" the North Koreans were threatening to impose.
You have to respond in a tough manner to that. The last time in March of 1994, when they leveled a threat about a sea of fire to the South Koreans, we responded by deploying patriot (ph) to South Korea.
It seems to me you have to look beyond the rhetoric and look to the structure of the situation, present the North Koreans with a clear choice. Through one path lies a diplomatic solution, lies the potential of energy, as the assistant secretary just indicated. But the other path has to be a tough path that shows if they continue their defiance, there actually is a penalty.
I believe it's critical for the United States, in order to make that second path viable, to show there's pressure on Pyongyang to comply, to at least try the first path in good faith; otherwise, we will not be able to convince our allies to go along with us to a tougher course.
ZAHN: In closing this morning, when you talk about the second path, are you talking economic sanctions, or are you talking military action?
PONEMAN: At this point, I think we have to be very clear about certain red lines. I believe that, for example, the movement of the spent fuel in the pond (ph), the 8,000 rods that North Korea already has containing five to six bombs' worth of plutonium, moving that into the reprocessing facility could create a significant and lasting threat to the United States and its allies. For that kind of threat, I believe we need to have a military option at least available to us. I don't believe sanctions per se will get us either to a military solution or to a diplomatic solution. They may, however, provide some pressure to lead to either one.
ZAHN: Mr. Poneman, we're going to have to leave it there this morning. Thank you very much for your insights -- appreciate your time this morning.
PONEMAN: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
