Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview With Sandy Berger

Aired January 03, 2003 - 07:03   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 get more to that nuclear standoff with North Korea. President Bush continues to express confidence that the situation will be resolved through diplomacy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe this situation with North Korea will be resolved peacefully. As I said, it's a diplomatic issue, not a military issue, and we're working all fronts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAGAN: Meanwhile, the State Department says officials from the U.S., Japan and South Korea will meet next week in Washington to discuss North Korea's nuclear weapons plans.

Joining us now from Washington to discuss the situation, former national security advisor, Sandy Berger.

Good morning -- thanks for joining us.

SANDY BERGER, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Good morning, Daryn.

KAGAN: Let's first get to this newest development with Japan and South Korea coming to Washington. Are you hopeful that that is a sign of progress in this showdown with North Korea?

BERGER: Well, I think it's fine to try to obtain cooperation from Japan and from China and from South Korea in terms of seeking to persuade North Korea to change its course. I'm not hopeful, however, that that's going to be successful.

KAGAN: Why not?

BERGER: I don't believe that China or South Korea wants to put the kind of pressure on North Korea that could cause North Korea to collapse economically. We really are at this point a bit out of synch with our allies in the region who seek to engage North Korea rather than to put increasing pressure on it.

KAGAN: And so, that puts increasing pressure on the U.S. to handle this situation. You see Americans looking one way towards Iraq; another way towards North Korea. You wrote an editorial over the holidays saying there are no safe backburners, I think are the exact words that you used, meaning that you can't put one over the other.

BERGER: Both of these are very serious crises, Daryn, as far as I'm concerned. If North Korea proceeds on the course it's on, it will have the capacity to produce five to six nuclear weapons within a matter of months. A burgeoning North Korea nuclear arsenal, a country that has missiles to deliver those, that has a history of selling its weapons technology to other countries in the world. This is a very serious development, and I don't believe we should minimize it at all.

KAGAN: And so, very deserving of attention, but you also point out that the U.S. cannot afford to drop the ball right now with Iraq.

BERGER: Well, I think we're on a course with Iraq. We have to maintain the pressure and continue to try to demonstrate with the inspectors and through our own intelligence the continuing deception of Saddam Hussein with respect to nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction that he has.

In international affairs, the cards aren't often always dealt one at a time. In this situation, we have two crises that we have to deal with. And I'm fearful that we're underplaying the North Korean problem, because we do not want to upset the timetable fro Iraq. I think that would be a big mistake.

KAGAN: Much has been made of the difference between the Clinton administration, how they handled North Korea, and how the current Bush administration is handling that. Let me take you back to your days in the White House. The difference being that the Clinton administration was engaged in a dialogue with North Korea, and yet, it has become very clear that while the North Koreans were saying one thing, they were doing something else behind the backs of the Americans and the rest of the world.

BERGER: Well, the big difference was that we said that a North Korea that obtained nuclear weapons was not acceptable. This administration seems to be saying it's all right if North Korea obtains nuclear weapons. They may have two. What difference does it make if they have five or six?

KAGAN: You really think that the Bush administration is saying that?

BERGER: Well, they certainly are not pushing back very hard. Secretary Powell said last Sunday that they have a few, what's the difference between a few and many?

First of all, we don't know for certain that they have two nuclear weapons. We know they have plutonium to make those weapons, and there is a huge difference between having a very small number and having essentially a factory that can produce nuclear weapons, that can sell those nuclear weapons. It changes the entire power equation in Asia.

So, the big difference I think between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration is that we said that a nuclear North Korea is unacceptable. We were prepared to go to the United Nations for sanctions...

KAGAN: Let me just jump in here real quickly...

BERGER: Yes.

KAGAN: ... and then say what are clearly limited options of what the Bush administration has right now, militarily and using allies. How, in fact, should they push back harder than you believe they're doing right now?

BERGER: Well, I think we're going to have to engage the north directly. That doesn't mean give in to blackmail. That doesn't mean make further concessions. It means seeking from the north further steps that can give greater assurance that we have, in fact, a non- nuclear North Korea.

KAGAN: And that discussion will go on. Sandy Berger, thanks for coming in this morning -- appreciate your time.

BERGER: Thank you, Daryn.

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 3, 2003 - 07:03   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 get more to that nuclear standoff with North Korea. President Bush continues to express confidence that the situation will be resolved through diplomacy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe this situation with North Korea will be resolved peacefully. As I said, it's a diplomatic issue, not a military issue, and we're working all fronts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAGAN: Meanwhile, the State Department says officials from the U.S., Japan and South Korea will meet next week in Washington to discuss North Korea's nuclear weapons plans.

Joining us now from Washington to discuss the situation, former national security advisor, Sandy Berger.

Good morning -- thanks for joining us.

SANDY BERGER, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Good morning, Daryn.

KAGAN: Let's first get to this newest development with Japan and South Korea coming to Washington. Are you hopeful that that is a sign of progress in this showdown with North Korea?

BERGER: Well, I think it's fine to try to obtain cooperation from Japan and from China and from South Korea in terms of seeking to persuade North Korea to change its course. I'm not hopeful, however, that that's going to be successful.

KAGAN: Why not?

BERGER: I don't believe that China or South Korea wants to put the kind of pressure on North Korea that could cause North Korea to collapse economically. We really are at this point a bit out of synch with our allies in the region who seek to engage North Korea rather than to put increasing pressure on it.

KAGAN: And so, that puts increasing pressure on the U.S. to handle this situation. You see Americans looking one way towards Iraq; another way towards North Korea. You wrote an editorial over the holidays saying there are no safe backburners, I think are the exact words that you used, meaning that you can't put one over the other.

BERGER: Both of these are very serious crises, Daryn, as far as I'm concerned. If North Korea proceeds on the course it's on, it will have the capacity to produce five to six nuclear weapons within a matter of months. A burgeoning North Korea nuclear arsenal, a country that has missiles to deliver those, that has a history of selling its weapons technology to other countries in the world. This is a very serious development, and I don't believe we should minimize it at all.

KAGAN: And so, very deserving of attention, but you also point out that the U.S. cannot afford to drop the ball right now with Iraq.

BERGER: Well, I think we're on a course with Iraq. We have to maintain the pressure and continue to try to demonstrate with the inspectors and through our own intelligence the continuing deception of Saddam Hussein with respect to nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction that he has.

In international affairs, the cards aren't often always dealt one at a time. In this situation, we have two crises that we have to deal with. And I'm fearful that we're underplaying the North Korean problem, because we do not want to upset the timetable fro Iraq. I think that would be a big mistake.

KAGAN: Much has been made of the difference between the Clinton administration, how they handled North Korea, and how the current Bush administration is handling that. Let me take you back to your days in the White House. The difference being that the Clinton administration was engaged in a dialogue with North Korea, and yet, it has become very clear that while the North Koreans were saying one thing, they were doing something else behind the backs of the Americans and the rest of the world.

BERGER: Well, the big difference was that we said that a North Korea that obtained nuclear weapons was not acceptable. This administration seems to be saying it's all right if North Korea obtains nuclear weapons. They may have two. What difference does it make if they have five or six?

KAGAN: You really think that the Bush administration is saying that?

BERGER: Well, they certainly are not pushing back very hard. Secretary Powell said last Sunday that they have a few, what's the difference between a few and many?

First of all, we don't know for certain that they have two nuclear weapons. We know they have plutonium to make those weapons, and there is a huge difference between having a very small number and having essentially a factory that can produce nuclear weapons, that can sell those nuclear weapons. It changes the entire power equation in Asia.

So, the big difference I think between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration is that we said that a nuclear North Korea is unacceptable. We were prepared to go to the United Nations for sanctions...

KAGAN: Let me just jump in here real quickly...

BERGER: Yes.

KAGAN: ... and then say what are clearly limited options of what the Bush administration has right now, militarily and using allies. How, in fact, should they push back harder than you believe they're doing right now?

BERGER: Well, I think we're going to have to engage the north directly. That doesn't mean give in to blackmail. That doesn't mean make further concessions. It means seeking from the north further steps that can give greater assurance that we have, in fact, a non- nuclear North Korea.

KAGAN: And that discussion will go on. Sandy Berger, thanks for coming in this morning -- appreciate your time.

BERGER: Thank you, Daryn.

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