Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Hawaii Recovers from Quake; North Korean Nuclear Test Confirmed
Aired October 16, 2006 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Kyra Phillips at the CNN World Headquarters in Atlanta.
DON LEMON, CO-HOST: And I'm Don Lemon. North Korea's nuclear test, it is for real. Will new sanctions work? How high are the stakes? Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice travels to the region, and she will brief us this hour.
PHILLIPS: Paradise tossed. The Hawaiian earthquake, the damage, the tourists stuck. The impact on the island.
LEMON: A CNN exclusive, a rare look inside the Iraqi insurgency through one of their own.
You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
Well, much of the power is back on. Many of the schools are open, but post-quake Hawaii has got a long way to go before you can call things back to normal.
Right now roads, bridges and buildings are getting sized up for stability, and all the islands are under an official state of emergency.
CNN's Chris Lawrence is keeping track for us in Kona.
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Don, we've seen parks in this area where the road is literally cracked, splintered and then just given way.
Behind me officials have closed off this part of the road, because there's a bridge down that road. And people who live on the other side of that bridge, officials saw pieces of that bridge falling off. So they have shut down the bridge, and the people who live on the other side are being allowed to walk across it. But no cars are getting allowed in and out.
Of course, not all the damage is the type you can even see with the naked eye. That's why a lot of crews are going through roads, bridges, trying to assess the damage to see if the earthquake compromised some of the structural integrity of some of these roads and bridges.
And later this afternoon a FEMA crew will be coming out to help in that effort. Indeed sort of the same thing. As I drove up and down the coast for the last few hours to see where huge boulders literally had come down the mountain, that the crews had done a fairly good job of breaking those down into smaller pieces and trying to clear them off the road.
Most of the major roads are completely clear. The power is back on. I stopped by a hospital that had been evacuated. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) other side of the island. But they did have (UNINTELLIGIBLE) still there including some (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
LEMON: All right. We appear to be having some problems with the sound there from Chris Lawrence, who's reporting from Kona. You can imagine what the tornado -- what the earthquake and everything that's happening there, we would have some problems.
PHILLIPS: The cell phones were jammed all through the night, and it was hard to even get a line, e specially with all the electricity.
LEMON: We're lucky to even get him, right?
PHILLIPS: Right. We'll keep working it.
LEMON: Yes.
PHILLIPS: Well, tornado warnings in Texas and Louisiana. Let's get straight to meteorologist Jacqui Jeras, working everything for us there in the weather center.
Hey, Jacqui.
(WEATHER REPORT)
LEMON: Just amazing. All right, Jacqui Jeras. Thank you very much for that.
And as Jacqui said, some parts of the country are getting a crash course in flash floods. So if you can't see the road, don't try to drive through it.
Rescue crews in Southeast Texas have their hands full today, pulling stranded drivers out of their cars. Some places saw up to 10 inches of rain overnight. And we've heard reports of several tornadoes.
At least two deaths are being blamed on the storm. The bodies of two women were found in an SUV reportedly surrounded by eight feet of water.
PHILLIPS: For a week, the world assumed, speculated, questioned. Now we know for sure whether North Korea really conducted a nuclear test.
Our Barbara Starr has the latest at the Pentagon -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kyra, one week after the event now confirmation indeed, the U.S. intelligence community saying yes, it was an underground nuclear test.
A short time ago the office of John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, issued a statement saying, quote, "Analysis of air samples collected on October 11, 2006, detected radioactive debris which confirms that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion in the vicinity of Pyongyang on October 9, 2006. The explosion was less than a kiloton."
Why is all of this important? Well, it has taken the intelligence community some days to figure out, to come up with the confirmation. The first test that they did from an airborne sample from an aircraft that flew the day after the test, that first test over the Sea of Japan came up negative.
So they flew a second flight. That's the WC-135, a U.S. Air Force spy plane. The second flight came up positive. So it took them a while to figure all of this out.
It's very important for the intelligence community, not because of sanctions, not because of what's been going on at the United Nations, but so they can figure out exactly what North Korea has by looking at the data of the radioactive debris.
They hope now to make some calculations about the device, what parts of it worked, what parts of it didn't work, and whether North Korea may now be out on the black market shopping for technology for future events in its nuclear program -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Barbara, we know the U.S. military does a number of surveillance flights on a regular basis. Also a lot of training to intercept missiles.
What do you think they're doing right now, the military, to prepare for a second nuke test? Because you know that's on the table.
STARR: Well, right, that's exactly right, Kyra. No one can confirm that North Korea, is planning a second nuclear test, just like there was really no confirmation that the first one was about to happen.
But the U.S. intelligence community, the U.S. military, goes on the basis that at some point they will. In fact, U.S. intelligence officials saying this morning that North Korea has the capacity to conduct a second test. So it's not clear to them there's any final preparations under way.
So expect to see these reconnaissance flights continuing to fly over the region. Expect to see U.S. satellites dwelling high above the Korean Peninsula over the Sea of Japan for some time to come. They will try and keep an eye on all of this.
But one of the continuing problems is North Korea is a very close society. No one is sure where all their nuclear facilities are. And as we saw in this test, all of it was done underground. So it's very hard to get any clues about what ' really going on -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Barbara Starr live from the Pentagon. Thanks.
A congressman resigns, a scandal that just won't go away. And the question remains, who knew what, when, about Mark Foley. A House panel is hearing more testimony today. Details coming up in the NEWSROOM.
LEMON: Record Snow fall, major headaches. Cold days for the powerless in western New York. Details ahead in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: And we're waiting for Tony Snow to step up to the podium there to hold the White House briefing. Hoping that he will talk about North Korea and the fact that tests have been confirmed, that indeed North Korea did successfully test a nuclear weapon.
The question is, how effective is it? Was it considered a failure? Is it enough to be a threat to the United States?
Waiting for Tony Snow to make a comment. And of course, we have a number of live guests throughout the program today to talk about that a little more in depth.
LEMON: And while we're waiting for that to happen, we have a lot of developing news happening today. This one coming from the NEWSROOM and our very own T.J. Holmes.
What do you have for us, T.J.?
T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, Don, we're keeping an eye on a couple of things here. We're going to start first in Vermont, a sad story. We saw this memorial service over the weekend for 21-year-old University of Vermont student Michelle Gardner-Quinn.
You may remember, we were talking about it just here last week. She went missing, as you see there, on October 7 of last week after a night out with some friends. So very uncharacteristic of her to go missing like this and to go off and not tell anybody where she was.
Well, indeed, in fact, later in the week she was found dead. Saw a memorial service for her over the weekend.
But now the suspect in the case that police -- the police have identified, the 36-year-old Brian Rooney, is saying that he had -- he has nothing to do with it. We're going to get back to this story. We'll hand it back to you guys for now.
LEMON: Yes, T.J., we want to get to the White House. And the president talking with Tony -- heard word from Tony Snow the president had a 15-minute conversation with the Iraqi prime minister this morning. But now he's talking about Hawaii. Let's go to the briefing.
TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: ... assistance as needed, and the president continues to have his thoughts on the people of Hawaii, as they clean up in the aftermath of the earthquake. Questions -- David?
DAVID GREGORY, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Why did the president call Maliki?
SNOW: Well, because it's one of -- the two leaders believe that it's important to stay in regular touch. And this is a base touching exercise. He'll continue to do it.
GREGORY: Was there more to it than that? The president felt a need to reassure him about the political debate in this country?
SNOW: No. Actually, it was the prime minister that raised questions about it and not the president.
GREGORY: Can you elaborate on that?
SNOW: Yes. To the extent that it seems -- it's important to realize, for the people of Iraq to realize, that the president and the United States government are behind Prime Minister Maliki's efforts to continue building democracy in Iraq and also to do some of the tougher necessary business, including going after militias and terrorists.
The prime minister was keeping the president updated on all three aspects of the strategy, not only in terms of security but also political reconciliation and the economic path. So they had pretty good discussion in those areas.
The prime minister also wanted to make it clear, for instance, that -- that talk of, you know, giving timetables or expiration dates or whatever to the government were not only undermining the government but also inspiring terrorists, is the term he used. And similarly, he dismissed the notion of partition, which he also thought was undermining the government.
GREGORY: He also has said to "USA Today", though, you say that you are on the same page in terms of fighting the militias. Well, Maliki is telling the "USA Today" that his government will not force militias to disarm until later this year, early next year, despite the violence.
SNOW: What's interesting is that's the lead of the piece. And I've read the interview three times. And it's not in there. Let me read to you the first sentence. The first answer of the first question.
"We started to deal with militias since the first day I took over at prime minister. I declared from that day one of the goals was to dissolve the militias. I believed there could be no true state while armed militias are operating. This conviction has not changed."
Then he goes into what I was talking about before, which is taking a look at the political element, the security aspect, and the economic factor. He talks about working on the implementation of CPA Order 91 that deals with dismantling militias. Later on he says that the militias may be one of the easier problems to deal with. The more serious challenge is terrorism, composed of the remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda. He says that although it takes time, quote, "The most important thing is we have started and started strong."
So I read the piece, too. And maybe they -- they published a transcript and the transcript seems to indicate that the prime minister is actively engaged in the issue of militias. And there's no mention -- maybe I'm missing it here but I read it three times -- of saying that he's not going to force militias to disarm until later this year or early next year. As a matter of fact, he says he's in the process of doing it now.
GREGORY: One final point on this, if I can. One final point, which is you say that the Maliki is concerned about talk of a timetable. Well, he is the one about withdrawal of troops.
SNOW: No. He believes in withdrawal of troops. And in here he expresses confidence that as the Iraqis will become more capable. There was -- there was talk that, you know, he was only going to give two months. There was a specific news report that had him concerned.
GREGORY: You just said a minute ago he's concerned about setting timetables, because it encourages....
SNOW: Actually, I was -- ask Kelly, because she got it right in the gaggle. But there was a news story he said he was worried about a report that said that we were giving him two months.
And you're absolutely right in the fact that what the Iraqis do believe in trying to assert effective control over -- over all of Iraq. And, as a matter of fact, he does talk about that in the transcript of the interview with "USA Today".
GREGORY: Concerned about talk of a timetable for a withdrawal? Or was he specific...
SNOW: Not a timetable for withdrawal. The way it is portrayed is we're giving him two months or we'll go for somebody else. This is a timetable for his government, not for withdrawal. So thank you for...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is this stuff that came out of the Warner visit?
SNOW: No. I think it's -- the answer is I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it refers to the report that said there was a rumor that there were going to be attempts to replace him if certain things didn't is happen in two months. And the president said, "The rumors are not true. We support you."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president initiated the call?
SNOW: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So what was the level of concern that caused the president to pick up the phone?
SNOW: It's not a level of concern. Here you have the center front in the war on terror, which the president has been talking about. And he's made it clear that he wants to consult with the prime minister regularly.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Also in that article, there seemed to be a suggestion -- it was rather direct, where Prime Minister Maliki was critical of what he calls an over reliance on force, that perhaps the United States and the coalition forces needed to engage in other methods, reaching out perhaps to the insurgents for dialogue.
SNOW: Actually, what he was talking about, he was saying that in certain sectors of Baghdad, for instance Sadr City, he did not think that you -- it would be important to use overwhelming military forces.
He argues, again, in the transcript of the full interview, that 95 percent of the people in Sadr City are, in fact, not supportive of radical elements in the Mehdi Army.
He's always said that he believes in reaching out to insurgents, and that is, in fact, a fundamental part of his program. There are -- what they want to do is to disarm, decommission and reintegrate members who had formerly been part of the insurgency, use -- invite them into the political process and also provide economic opportunities to give them the ability to operate peacefully and in direct support of government. So that's what he was referring to.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One more just for the record.
SNOW: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does the White House support the idea, if something is worked out or raised (ph), of insurgents and the United States having direct talks? Is that something the administration...
SNOW: Well, as you know, the administration has had talks with insurgents.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But I mean, in a way that seems to elevate as a solution for what's going on right now?
SNOW: Well, again, the government and Prime Minister Maliki is -- there's a sovereign government there. And they're the ones who would be responsible for engaging in talks. The United States has, in fact, been engaged in efforts to reach out and talk to people into following a peaceful path. That's nothing new -- Martha
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tony, does the president have total confidence, emphasis on total, in the Maliki government and that they are doing everything possible to get rid of those militias?
SNOW: I think he's -- he believes that the prime minister is doing everything in his power to do it. I don't know -- this is one of these questions I don't think it's possible to give you a precise answer, which is total 100 percent complete -- he has complete faith. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any concerns at this point?
SNOW: The concerns are -- no. But look, let me put it this way. There is more to be done. There has to be more to be done. The violence levels, absolutely unacceptable. And it is important to make progress.
One of the things the prime minister was talking about in the phone call this morning with the president is he feels confident that the steps he is taking, both on the political and economic and security fronts, not only are moving forward but are going to yield some fruit.
He also assured the president that he is and will continue making tough decisions in terms of going after. We have received small reports -- for instance, I mentioned it a couple of times last week -- going after at least one brigade within a police battalion that was seen as being guilty of engaging in acts of terror.
It is obvious that more needs to be done, given the way the violence has been perpetrated. And also a lot more needs to be done so that the government of Iraq can, in fact, sustain a government and defend itself.
So all of those things are key elements. The president does believe and does support the prime minister's efforts to pursue that goal.
LEMON: And that's Tony -- Tony Snow there, addressing reporters at the White House. Really talking about this conversation this morning, apparently a 15-minute conversation that the president had with Prime Minister Maliki earlier today.
And he said the president really did this because he needed -- Mr. Maliki raised the issue. He needed to know if the U.S. was, indeed, behind Iraq and what was happening there. There was concern about some reports that insurgents there were undermining the government.
So this conversation was really just one that they had this morning to -- sort of a reassurance conversation between the two men. And he's saying, you know, that they -- that things were working out and that the tactics that they were taking there, Tony Snow believed were yielding some fruit. There you have it.
PHILLIPS: And we'll continue to monitor the briefing and see what he says about North Korea. We've been talking a lot about that today. First there was an explosion; now, the fall-out. Will North Korea's nuclear test spark a new arms race? And how far are the U.S. and Japan willing to go? We're going to talk to an expert.
LEMON: Business as usual, on alert for bombs and bullets. A slice of life from South Korea. That's ahead in the NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIPS: If you use test strips to test your blood sugar levels, listen up. The Food and Drug Administration says counterfeit test strips were distributed around the country. They're used in LifeScan One Touch blood glucose monitors.
Well, the FDA says that they could give bad information, leading diabetics to take too much or not enough insulin. So check with your pharmacy to see how to tell those bogus strips from the real thing.
LEMON: And a growing scandal over stock options has claimed yet another victim. Susan Lisovicz joins us from the New York Stock Exchange to tell us which top executive this time is getting the ax.
Who is it, Susan?
SUSAN LISOVICZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Don.
Well, he's very well known in healthcare circles. In fact, he has gotten a lot of credit for turning United Healthcare Group around. United Health Group, I should say, around.
William McGuire agreeing to step down from his role as chairman and CEO of the company, a company he had led for 15 years. He's one of the most high profile executives to get caught up in the back dating scandal.
United Health is the country's largest health insurer.
His resignation follows an internal probe that found stock options awarded to him over the past decade were likely manipulated. At the end of last year, Dr. McGuire's options were valued at more than one and three-quarter billion -- with a "B" -- dollars, far more than any other chief executive.
With this latest shakeup at United Health, more than 30 top officials have lost their jobs because of improper stock option manipulation. And Dr. McGuire is the fifth CEO to step down in just the past week. Big fall-out -- Don.
LEMON: Yes, we hear manipulation, Susan. What does that mean? Explain to us exactly how options are being manipulated? Is it back dating or something like that?
LISOVICZ: That's exactly right. And of course, to benefit the recipient. In short, stock options are being back dated to give the recipient a higher return. Stock options specifically given to executives so they can profit if the company's stock price rises in the future. It's a very typical part of an executive's compensation.
The practice allows executives to buy shares later at the price they were on the day that the option was granted, but by back dating these stock options, companies pretend they were rewarded on a day the stock price was especially low, meaning a bigger profit when the executives exercises the option.
Dr. McGuire insisted that it was just a coincidence that his options were dated to these times. "The Wall Street Journal's" analysis estimated the odds were 200 million to one that Dr. McGuire's grant pattern occurred by chance.
And today the United Healthcare shares are down one and three- quarter percent.
Overall, the market posting small gains, small enough -- or big enough, I should say, that the Dow posted another intercession high. And we are right now 20 points from Dow 12,000.
The NASDAQ composite, meanwhile, up a third of a percent. That's the latest from Wall Street.
Coming up next hour, why many parents are as unprepared to pay for college as their children are to do their own laundry -- Don and Kyra.
LEMON: College is very expensive.
LISOVICZ: Frightening.
PHILLIPS: My mom always made me do my own laundry.
LISOVICZ: me, too.
PHILLIPS: Unless I begged her to do it for me.
LEMON: You never do it.
LISOVICZ: We're better people as a result, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: That's right. We're independent women, thanks to our moms making us do the laundry.
LEMON: I've seen the laundry. You're not very good at it.
PHILLIPS: So I can't bowl, all right? Let's move on.
LEMON: All right. Susan, thank you.
PHILLIPS: Susan, thanks.
LISOVICZ: You're welcome.
PHILLIPS: Straight ahead, new tests, new results, a new twist to the nuclear standoff with North Korea. The truth about last week's underground explosion comes to the surface.
LEMON: Plus, a briefing by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who will discuss her upcoming trip to Asia and the latest developments on North Korea. We'll bring it to you live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: North Korea under U.N. sanctions. Japan under the gun. Tokyo is feeling the fallout from Pyongyang's nuclear test. Now, how far are Japan, its neighbors, and the U.S. really willing to go? Let's get some insight from the retired Naval Commander James Auer. He heads the U.S.-Japan Center at Vanderbilt University and is a former defense advisor on Japan.
Jim, good to see you again.
JAMES AUER, U.S. JAPAN CTR., VANDERBILT UNIV.: My pleasure.
PHILLIPS: Why don't we go ahead and talk about the test. Now we know it definitely was a nuclear test. Are you seeing it as a failure, because of how small it was, or are you concerned that this is enough that could be put on to a warhead, could be enough to be used for a dirty bomb?
AUER: A little one, unfortunately, is good enough. The question is do they have that capability? And apparently they do.
PHILLIPS: So you -- well, how big then do you think this could get? Is this just one step to something much larger? I think, to put in context, Americans are sitting back, whether it's Ohio, or California or Georgia thinking OK, they actually did it. Could it reach me?
AUER: Well, the question about reaching the United States is not the question of their bomb, but the question of their missile. They apparently have a nuclear weapon, at least one of them, that they just tested. They probably have a couple more. As far as we know, they still don't have a reliable missile that can reach the United States. The United States' biggest concern is if they would proliferate, sell these weapons to bad guys. Japan and South Korea, of course, can be reached by the missiles the North Koreans already have, so they are very, very concerned.
PHILLIPS: All right, so let's talk about what's happening on behalf of the U.S. military and allies, specifically Japan -- I know that's your expertise -- to prevent something that would be a threat to the United States, or prevent something that could be a threat to an ally nation, or if this got worse.
Let's talk about the ballistic defense LBO ships that are working with the Japanese? How is that helping our security?
AUER: Well, the United States, as you've just said, has missile- defense ships in the Sea of Japan, between Japan and North Korea. Those will stay on alert. The U.N. sanctions, which have just been voted, would allow the country's in the area -- the United States, Japan, as well as China and South Korea -- if they'll participate, to monitor cargo in and out of North Korea, to limit financial transactions, and take other steps which could economically hurt North Korea considerably.
PHILLIPS: That did come out, about China conducting more thorough inspections of North Korea trucks along the border in China. You were delving a little bit there into the EMIO operations, Expended Maritime Intercept Operations, where the U.S. is actually tracking ships out of North Korea. Do you think that's enough to prevent some sort of threatening payload to come into the waterways?
AUER: Well, probably it can't be 100 percent effective, but it's certainly a step worth taking. Again, as you mentioned, the longer border is the border between China and North Korea, and that'll be particularly important, both for weapons proliferation, as well as hurting North Korea economically, if the Chinese will really put teeth into that -- into those sanctions.
PHILLIPS: You know the new prime minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe. Have you had a chance to talk to him about North Korea? What's his thinking? What was the discussion like?
AUER: I met with him several times this year before he became prime minister, and I know that he's very concerned about it. I haven't spoken to him in the brief time he has become the prime minister, but I've talked to people who do know him and consult with him very closely, And naturally he's a very, very concerned.
Japan has been a longtime adversary of Korea. They have good relations, relatively good relations, with South Korea, but not with the north, and so the north reserves some of its most serious rhetoric against Japan, as well as Japan's alliance partner, the United States.
PHILLIPS: Jim Auer, can I ask you to stay with us? We're expecting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to address North Korea and the threat here. We want to take that live and then hav a little more of a discussion with you. Is that all right?
AUER: Sure, that would be fine.
PHILLIPS: Thanks, Jim.
LEMON: We move on now. Paradise tossed -- now how Hawaii totes up the cost from Sunday's earthquake. We'll have the latest on the shakeup and the cleanup just ahead in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Let's go to Washington now, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talking about her upcoming trip to Asia about U.N. sanctions.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: ... China, the Republic of Korea and Russia. At each of these stops, I will advance our diplomatic efforts to implement Resolution 1718, to address common threats to peace and stability, and to thwart the ambitions of states that illicitly seek to develop weapons of mass destruction.
The purpose of my trip is to rally the support of our friends and allies in Northeast Asia for a comprehensive strategy.
First, we must strengthen our strategic relationships in the region. As President Bush has made clear, the United States has both the will and capability to meet the full range of our security and deterrent commitments to allies like South Korea and Japan.
This trip is an opportunity to reaffirm our reciprocal obligations.
For the major powers of Northeast Asia, North Korea's behavior has clarified the strategic interests that we share. To advance these common interests, every country in the region must share the burdens as well as the benefits of our common security.
Second, as North Korea scorns the international community, we will collectively isolate North Korea from the benefits of participation in that community.
North Korea cannot endanger the world and then expect other nations to conduct business as usual in arms or missile parts. It cannot destabilize the international system and then expect to exploit elaborate financial networks built for peaceful commerce.
Resolution 1718 points the way. We expect every member of the international community to fully implement all aspects of this resolution. And we expect the Security Council to aggressively monitor the process.
Third, we and our partners must expand defensive measures to counter North Korea's full array of illicit and proliferation activities. Resolution 1718 has set a new international standard requiring states to ensure that North Korea neither imports nor exports proliferation-sensitive materials.
To this end, the United States will continue to expand cooperation among nations through the Proliferation Security Initiative. And together we will work to prevent and disrupt the global traffic in weapons of mass destruction and related materials.
As President Bush said last week, the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to any state or non-state entity would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea accountable for the consequences of such an action.
This week, I will discuss with nations in the region how to design a practical architecture for detecting and screening for such dangerous materials.
Fourth, we must ensure the continued vitality of the global regime to prevent and counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The nonproliferation regime is under strain, but it is not broken. And the United States is working to preserve and renew this vital pillar of international security.
The greatest challenge to the nonproliferation regime comes from countries that violate their pledges to respect the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The North Korean regime is one such case, but also so is Iran. The Iranian government is watching and it can now see that the international community will respond to threats from nuclear proliferation. I expect the Security Council to begin work this week on an Iran sanctions resolution. So the Iranian government should consider the course that it is on, which could lead to simply to further isolation.
Finally, we must remind North Korea that a positive path remains open to it through the six-party talks. Thus far, North Korea has chosen the path of confrontation and all that that entails -- deepening isolation, a failing economy, and few opportunities for its oppressed peoples.
With Resolution 1718, the world is sending a clear message to the North Koreans that they must make a new set of calculations about the costs of the current pattern of behavior.
North Korea must honor its own agreements -- its 1991 joint pledge of denuclearization with South Korea and its September 2005 pledge to denuclearize in the six-party process. To those responsibilities we must now add full compliance with U.N. Resolution 1718.
If North Korea reverses course and embraces the path of cooperation, if it makes the strategic choice to dismantle its nuclear weapons completely, verifiably and irreversibly, an entirely new and better future would be open to it and to its people.
I'll take some questions now.
QUESTION: What steps have the United States taken so far to implement the sanctions? And does South Korea's apparent uneasiness make you uneasy?
RICE: Well, first of all, I think that we've had a very strong reaction from everybody from the day of the test of the North Koreans. We have now a very strong Chapter 7 resolution.
I remind that it only passed a couple of days ago and so implementation has yet to begin. The United States, of course, wants very much to have discussions with all of our parties. I would note that some countries -- Japan, Australia -- have already announced additional measures in addition to those that are in 1718. And I suspect that you'll see more of that.
But the key now is that we have a Chapter 7 resolution, 15-0, as a matter of fact, a council resolution, meaning that all parties in effect are in sponsorship of it.
It has very clear guidelines on what should and should not be allowed to get into North Korea. It has very powerful tool in the possibility of interdiction of dangerous and suspicious cargo. It has a ban on luxury goods, which I think will be a problem for a regime that has always enjoyed luxury goods while its people, many of them, starved.
So I think we have a very powerful resolution here.
I do not think that you are seeing anything but a kind of natural concern on the part of countries in the region that we do this in a way that does not escalate tensions, that tries to deal with the conflict in a way that allows all parties to fulfill their responsibilities without escalating tensions.
And no, I'm not in the least concerned. I think we've gotten very strong reaction not just from South Korea, but from other parties as well.
QUESTION: More specifically, on China, there was certainly a statement from Ambassador Wang after the vote, saying that interdiction was not indicated; that inspection is one thing, but interdiction is another.
We've seen reports today of some inspections of trucks along the border, which I assume that you take as a positive sign.
But do you have any understanding from the Chinese, or are you seeking a understanding from the Chinese, that they would be willing to interdict ships as is not required under this resolution, but is suggested and would be continuation of the PSI?
RICE: 1718 requires, essentially, that states make all efforts to prevent the trade in these dangerous materials. That's really what this requires. And I fully expect that everybody is going to do everything that they can to prevent it.
Now, we have a powerful tool that is not unlike what we've been doing through the Proliferation Security Initiative, which requires states to cooperate. It requires states to share intelligence. It has, on occasion, led to either the grounding of certain aircraft or the holding of certain ships at port or the boarding of certain ships.
That's how the Proliferation Security Initiative has worked.
I am a firm believer that we need to now have either some set of conversations, some set of discussions, even perhaps some mechanism for understanding better how this cooperation will work with this powerful new tool.
And I can start those discussions. I am not concerned that the Chinese are going to turn their backs on their obligations. I don't think they would have voted for a resolution that they did not intend to carry through on.
And let's remember, no one has an interest in seeing the trade in dangerous materials or weapons of mass destruction.
That is, if anything, more destabilizing to the neighbors than even to the interests of the United States.
And so I fully expect that we will use this tool and use it wisely. I do hear states saying that they want to be certain that it won't ratchet up conflict. We have no desire to ratchet up conflict either. But we'll have some discussions on precisely how this will be carried out.
Do you want to follow up?
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... also like to ask you how concerned you might be about some indications that there could be a second test.
RICE: Yes.
We're watching it, obviously, and discussing it with other parties, as well. I think it goes to say that that would further deepen the isolation of North Korea, and I hope they would not take such a provocative act.
Because people went out of their way in this resolution to have a strong and firm hand and strong and firm response -- but to leave open a door for North Korea to take a different course if it wishes to do so.
I would hope that it would meet this firm and resolute response, but, yet, the openness to return to six-party talks in the way that it was intended.
QUESTION: You talked about expanding defensive measures. In addition to the PSI, or whatever the resolution requires to do, are you planning any sort of measures that would involve the American military in the region, or indeed the militaries of Japan or South Korea?
RICE: No. We have normal discussions between the United States and Japan as a result of our defense cooperation agreements and alliance. We have relations also with South Korea in terms of defense cooperation.
And, clearly, when there's a change in the perception or reality of the threat environment in Northeast Asia, it only makes sense that there would be discussions about how the defense cooperation and alliance obligations relate to that threat.
I think it is extremely important that our allies know that we are reaffirming all of our commitments, including our deterrent commitments to them that are long-standing, and that we will fully carry through on those commitments because we recognize that the North has created a new threat environment.
Nick, I don't foresee that we're talking about, at this early stage, specific measures.
But I think in the context of broad defense talks, of course you have to take into account what has happened in the security environment.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, these sanctions, as you say, are designed to prevent the further development of North Korea's program.
But what about the program as it stands now? Because if you look around the world, no country that's ever developed any nuclear capacity or tested has ever given that program up.
So is the end goal here to end the program? Or is it to develop some kind of deterrent relationship with North Korea? And what can you do in the short term to ensure that they don't test again?
RICE: Well, the goal is still to end the program and to do so irreversibly and verifiably. That is the stated goal of the six-party talks, that is the stated goal of the joint statement that was adopted in September of 2005, and that remains the goal.
And by the way, that remains the goal of all of the parties to that agreement. It's one of the strengths of that agreement that you have China, Japan, the United States, South Korea and Russia all signed on to that goal and to enforcing that goal.
Obviously, the six-party talks would be the way to do that. So by no means do we consider this irreversible.
There may not be cases -- there are cases of countries having decided to give up their capability. There were three such cases after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and so I wouldn't suggest that states don't sometimes give up capacity. Libya, of course not having tested, but definitely giving up programs that would have related to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. So any number of states have decided to -- South Africa, a country that decided to reverse course.
So I understand that the cases may seem somewhat different, but I think it is important to note that when countries decide that a nuclear program or nuclear weapons development is actually contrary to their state interests and is actually not going to buy them respect and engagement in the international system but rather would buy them just the opposite, then there are states that choose to reverse course. And I think we are hopeful that North Korea may choose to do that.
QUESTION: The president and yourself have said that the six- party process is the preferred way to resolve the North Korean issue.
Are you willing to return to those talks without preconditions at any time? And are you considering attaching conditions to the resumption of those talks as you have, for example, with Iran and holding talks with them?
RICE: We've said many times that we are prepared to return to the talks without precondition. And that holds.
Now, we want very much to have talks that are actually going to lead some place. You know, we don't need to go back to the table and have yet another discussion about when we'll start to discuss light- water reactors.
The joint statement was very clear that this is about the denuclearization -- verifiably and irreversibly -- of the Korean Peninsula. And I do think that it's important that talks not just be talks. They really need to have a path forward -- which the joint statement does point to -- to actually beginning to effect this program.
But no, we are prepared to do it without precondition.
I will say that my goal on this trip is, certainly, to reiterate that we're prepared to return to the talks. But North Korea also needs to understand that having defied the international community twice within a few months -- first with the missile test and now with a nuclear test -- that they will pay a price here through Resolution 1718.
And I'm principally going out to talk about implementation of 1718 and other defensive measures that might help.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, there's a strain of criticism against the administration out there which I'd like you to address. And tell me why, if it's wrong, why it might be wrong.
This strain of criticism points to the president's statements back in 2003 saying that a North Korea that is a nuclear power is unacceptable and that the administration won't tolerate it, et cetera. This strain of criticism points to the "axis of evil" speech.
And the strain of criticism basically alleges that you've chosen to invade Iraq and that, because of the problems that the U.S. is encountering in Iraq, it is making the administration less effective in dealing with North Korea and with Iran, the other two members of the axis of evil. RICE: Well, first of all, I think the president clearly had the diagnosis right about states that were pursuing -- outside of international norms -- troublesome policies.
Iraq is in a category by itself. Let's remember we were in a suspended state of war with Iraq after 1991.
But let's go to the North Korean and Iranian cases for a moment. Had I stood here in 2003 and told you, "Oh, by the way, we're going to have China on board for a Chapter 7 resolution against North Korea with an agreement that China will do everything that it can on the one hand to provide a path toward denuclearization through six-party talks, taking considerable responsibility for, but also sanctioning North Korea through the Security Council," I think people would have found that a bit of a leap -- given China's history, given China's traditions on these matters, given China's relationship with North Korea.
RICE: We are simply in a much stronger position to try and do something about a North Korean program that is decades old and a pursuit of nuclear weapons that has gone on for decades with the right combination of states that can provide both inducements and sticks at the table than with the United States there alone.
And we have spent the time and the effort in building that coalition of states that can actually provide the right combination to either induce North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program or, if necessary, to deal with the fact that it will not give up its program, and to punish that behavior. And so I think that you can say that what the president has done in putting together this coalition, with China at the center of it willing to go along with Chapter 7, is quite remarkable.
Now, the work is not done, but we still consider unacceptable and not irreversible a nuclear weapons program in North Korea. But not only does the United States consider that unacceptable and not irreversible, so does China, South Korea, Japan, Russia and the rest of the international system.
So let's give some time to these sanctions to work. Let's give some time to the diplomacy to work. Let's see if North Korea can be pushed in a different direction. But we've got a much stronger set of tools with which to do that.
And, on Iran, similarly, we also have a coalition of states that is working for a change in Iranian behavior concerning their nuclear program -- much stronger position for the United States to be in than it was just a little while ago when it was thought that the United States was the problem considering -- in considering Iran. Now Iran is the problem.
So the president has put together these coalitions. It's the right way to go about this activity, and it is the only way to use a diplomatic solution to resolve these cases.
I'll take...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: The problems in Iraq are not affecting our ability to handle these others?
RICE: We can certainly do more than one thing at a time. And I think what you're seeing is that, in fact, the international community understands that the proliferation risk and the proliferation dangers are dangers to them, not just to the United States, and so we're getting very good cooperation.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, these sanctions are not directed against the North Korean people.
RICE: Right.
QUESTION: But are you concerned that as a result of the crisis the humanitarian situation is going to become dramatically worse? Already, the World Food Programme is not getting the donations that it needs for its scaled-back program.
And also, if you could comment on South Korea's reluctance to suspend Kaesong or Kumgang Mountain projects, whether you're disappointed that you're allowing those to go forth?
RICE: We will see what the South Koreans decide to do about their activities in general with North Korea. I suspect that a lot of it has to do with what North Korea does. And the south has been very clear that it is evaluating all of its activities with North Korea. And we will see where this comes out.
The humanitarian side, on the other hand, we would hope that there will be humanitarian contributions to the North Korean people.
You may know that the United States has recently not been making those contributions, and it's not because of politics, it's not because we're wanting to use food as a weapon, which is something the president has said very clearly he will not do, but because the North Koreans have not agreed to the kind of transparency in their programs that can by any means guarantee that the food will get to the North Korean people, not to the North Korean elite.
And I think that's why there is difficulty in getting contributions for humanitarian assistance. It's not related to trying to use humanitarian assistance as a stick against the North Korean people.
And these people suffer enough. And we don't want to see the North Korean people suffer any more. But the best outcome would be if the North Korean regime recognized that there is a better way than the course on which it is currently launched and that as a part of that there could be an opening up to the North Korean people and beginning to deal with some of the very dire needs that they have, not for just short-term humanitarian assistance, but for longer term care.
Thank you very much.
See you tomorrow.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
