Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Tension Continues to Rise Between U.S., North Korea

Aired July 16, 2003 - 08:16   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.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Tension continues to rise between the U.S. and North Korea. Pyongyang now saying it has processed enough plutonium to build six nuclear weapons. The White House right now trying to verify those claims. But former Defense Secretary William Perry also sounding a note of alarm, telling the "Washington Post," and quoting now, "If the North Koreans move toward processing, then we are on a path toward war."
Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, is our guest to talk more about this.

Welcome to you.

Good morning to you, as well.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thank you, Bill.

Good morning.

HEMMER: Listen, what do you make of William Perry? Do you agree with his assessment? O'HANLON: Yes, I agree, and more importantly, Perry is one of the smartest and most calm and sober people who has served in the U.S. government in recent years. If he's saying this, he's not saying this to be hysterical or to gain press attention, he's saying it because he deeply believes it. And, in fact, he's been warning about it for quite some time.

HEMMER: What is changing, though, in that argument right now, and in that debate?

O'HANLON: Well, partly Perry's been trying to influence people internally, I believe, at least that's what he said in the newspaper. And he's getting frustrated because the Bush administration has this policy of gradually squeezing North Korea, hoping that somehow North Korea will change its mind. That's not working and if we keep on this course, North Korea, I think, will develop these nuclear weapons.

The whole debate over whether they already have or not is a little bit too tactical. They will be able to do this within months, even if they haven't so far. So I think we have to get serious about a new policy.

HEMMER: And Michael, here's the catch in all of this, how do you know what to believe out of North Korea? O'HANLON: You don't. You absolutely don't. And our intelligence is not sure, of course, whether we found this krypton gas, which is the natural byproduct of reprocessing plutonium.

So we're not sure. However, North Korea already has processed plutonium in the past. They will figure out how to do it again. I'm not sure if they've already accomplished it, but within months they can almost certainly be expected to reprocess enough additional plutonium for about a half dozen more nuclear weapons, at which point they can build them.

It really is not going to be a long delay. Whether it's already happened or not, we can't be sure.

HEMMER: What do you think the North Koreans want out of this? Or do you believe that they truly feel this overwhelming sense of insecurity that leads them right now to build these weapons?

O'HANLON: Well, that's possible, although I certainly think they also are interested in trying to extort money from the international community with these weapons. They would like to probably...

HEMMER: So do you buy them off? Do you give them the cash and end the dispute?

O'HANLON: I don't think so. I think what you have to do is push them to a deeper kind of economic reform. Otherwise they're going to generate another crisis when the first cash payment runs out. So I think we need to engage them in saying if you make a lot of changes in your conventional military and your economy, move towards reform the way Vietnam has, for example, we will help with economic assistance, with better diplomatic ties. But we will get tough if you don't.

Present them with a stark choice and force them to choose. Right now they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too, have the nuclear weapons and extort the aid. They cannot do both and we've got to prove that to them.

HEMMER: Help me understand this right now. The North Koreans want direct talks with the United States. The White House has said from the very beginning China has to have a role in this, the South Koreans have to have a role, the Japanese, as well. Where does the debate turn out when it comes to the North Koreans waiting these direct talks and the U.S. trying to involve it in a regional matter?

O'HANLON: Well, I think we have to be flexible. In one sense, the Bush administration is right, ultimately you have to have the other parties involved, because if you're going to reform North Korea's economy, you need the Chinese involved to tell them how, you need the Japanese involved to provide aid, the South Koreans to provide investment, the United States to provide security ties and assurances. So all the four parties do have to be involved.

However, we can present a proposal to the North Koreans bilaterally to kick start the whole process. So that's a way to sort of have our cake and eat it, too, or satisfy the immediate North Korean demand, but also wind up with multilateral talks.

We've got to get flexible. The idea of falling on your sword over principle about which number of parties to have at the negotiating table while the most serious nuclear crisis in a generation occurs in Northeast Asia, it's simply not a tenable position by the Bush administration.

HEMMER: A few seconds left here, Michael. Jump on this one, if you could. Does the Iraq question right now enter into this debate? Does it change the situation at all?

O'HANLON: Not much because military options would be totally unpalatable even if the Iraq mission were not ongoing. The idea of attacking North Korea, for example, as a last resort, to destroy its nuclear facilities, would risk war on the Peninsula, the destruction of Seoul, tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths on the Korean Peninsula.

We cannot totally dismiss this option because it's still better than letting North Korea develop a large nuclear arsenal. But it's not something we would rush into regardless of the deployment of our forces in the Persian Gulf.

HEMMER: Thank you, Michael.

Michael O'Hanlon down there in D.C.

We'll speak again, all right?

O'HANLON: That sounds good, Bill.

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 July 16, 2003 - 08:16   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Tension continues to rise between the U.S. and North Korea. Pyongyang now saying it has processed enough plutonium to build six nuclear weapons. The White House right now trying to verify those claims. But former Defense Secretary William Perry also sounding a note of alarm, telling the "Washington Post," and quoting now, "If the North Koreans move toward processing, then we are on a path toward war."
Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, is our guest to talk more about this.

Welcome to you.

Good morning to you, as well.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thank you, Bill.

Good morning.

HEMMER: Listen, what do you make of William Perry? Do you agree with his assessment? O'HANLON: Yes, I agree, and more importantly, Perry is one of the smartest and most calm and sober people who has served in the U.S. government in recent years. If he's saying this, he's not saying this to be hysterical or to gain press attention, he's saying it because he deeply believes it. And, in fact, he's been warning about it for quite some time.

HEMMER: What is changing, though, in that argument right now, and in that debate?

O'HANLON: Well, partly Perry's been trying to influence people internally, I believe, at least that's what he said in the newspaper. And he's getting frustrated because the Bush administration has this policy of gradually squeezing North Korea, hoping that somehow North Korea will change its mind. That's not working and if we keep on this course, North Korea, I think, will develop these nuclear weapons.

The whole debate over whether they already have or not is a little bit too tactical. They will be able to do this within months, even if they haven't so far. So I think we have to get serious about a new policy.

HEMMER: And Michael, here's the catch in all of this, how do you know what to believe out of North Korea? O'HANLON: You don't. You absolutely don't. And our intelligence is not sure, of course, whether we found this krypton gas, which is the natural byproduct of reprocessing plutonium.

So we're not sure. However, North Korea already has processed plutonium in the past. They will figure out how to do it again. I'm not sure if they've already accomplished it, but within months they can almost certainly be expected to reprocess enough additional plutonium for about a half dozen more nuclear weapons, at which point they can build them.

It really is not going to be a long delay. Whether it's already happened or not, we can't be sure.

HEMMER: What do you think the North Koreans want out of this? Or do you believe that they truly feel this overwhelming sense of insecurity that leads them right now to build these weapons?

O'HANLON: Well, that's possible, although I certainly think they also are interested in trying to extort money from the international community with these weapons. They would like to probably...

HEMMER: So do you buy them off? Do you give them the cash and end the dispute?

O'HANLON: I don't think so. I think what you have to do is push them to a deeper kind of economic reform. Otherwise they're going to generate another crisis when the first cash payment runs out. So I think we need to engage them in saying if you make a lot of changes in your conventional military and your economy, move towards reform the way Vietnam has, for example, we will help with economic assistance, with better diplomatic ties. But we will get tough if you don't.

Present them with a stark choice and force them to choose. Right now they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too, have the nuclear weapons and extort the aid. They cannot do both and we've got to prove that to them.

HEMMER: Help me understand this right now. The North Koreans want direct talks with the United States. The White House has said from the very beginning China has to have a role in this, the South Koreans have to have a role, the Japanese, as well. Where does the debate turn out when it comes to the North Koreans waiting these direct talks and the U.S. trying to involve it in a regional matter?

O'HANLON: Well, I think we have to be flexible. In one sense, the Bush administration is right, ultimately you have to have the other parties involved, because if you're going to reform North Korea's economy, you need the Chinese involved to tell them how, you need the Japanese involved to provide aid, the South Koreans to provide investment, the United States to provide security ties and assurances. So all the four parties do have to be involved.

However, we can present a proposal to the North Koreans bilaterally to kick start the whole process. So that's a way to sort of have our cake and eat it, too, or satisfy the immediate North Korean demand, but also wind up with multilateral talks.

We've got to get flexible. The idea of falling on your sword over principle about which number of parties to have at the negotiating table while the most serious nuclear crisis in a generation occurs in Northeast Asia, it's simply not a tenable position by the Bush administration.

HEMMER: A few seconds left here, Michael. Jump on this one, if you could. Does the Iraq question right now enter into this debate? Does it change the situation at all?

O'HANLON: Not much because military options would be totally unpalatable even if the Iraq mission were not ongoing. The idea of attacking North Korea, for example, as a last resort, to destroy its nuclear facilities, would risk war on the Peninsula, the destruction of Seoul, tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths on the Korean Peninsula.

We cannot totally dismiss this option because it's still better than letting North Korea develop a large nuclear arsenal. But it's not something we would rush into regardless of the deployment of our forces in the Persian Gulf.

HEMMER: Thank you, Michael.

Michael O'Hanlon down there in D.C.

We'll speak again, all right?

O'HANLON: That sounds good, Bill.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com