Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Sunday Morning
Interview With David Albright
Aired December 29, 2002 - 10:33 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.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: We get in-depth analysis now of North Korea's possible nuclear proliferation. David Albright is the co-author of the book, "Solving The North Korean Nuclear Puzzle" and he's also president of the Institute For Science and International Security in Washington where he is right now.
Good to see you.
DAVID ALBRIGHT, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: Good to be here.
WHITFIELD: All right, you heard Secretary of State Powell say there will be no strikes. Instead the Bush administration is taking the stance of containment. Are these steps in the right direction in your view?
ALBRIGHT: Well, they worry me. I mean it's hard to know what's going on in the mind of North Korea now. But it may be that they've just decided they want nuclear weapons and they want to try to expand their nuke arsenals rapidly as possible. And therefore, in that light, the U.S. policy may just be taking us on a path to war and yet we're not in any way prepared for that. So I do worry that their containment strategy is too much of a replay of what was happening in 1994.
WHITFIELD: How involved do you believe the U.S. ought to be given there are still so many unanswered questions about what the evidence of this activity is anyway?
ALBRIGHT: Well, I think they've suffered from a drift in their policy and I think they really need to get in control of the situation and that -- excuse me -- and I hope they will do that quickly. But so far, I have not been that encouraged.
It's a very dangerous regime. It has -- it's armed to the teeth with chemical and biological weapons. It may have one or two nuclear weapons. It feels like its back is up against the wall. It's a very paranoid state. And so, often we found in the last decade that just threatening them doesn't get them to back down. It just gets them to dig their heels in more. And so, I don't see much flexibility on the part of the administration on this issue.
For example, they say we won't negotiate until North Korea gets rid of its nuclear weapons program. Well, what does that actually mean? Does it mean they have to take one step in that direction by dismantling let's say this uranium enrichment program that they had been developing in secret or does it mean they have to get rid of everything they've done in secret? And so, there's a lot of, I think, just a very lack of clarity on what the United States wants out of North Korea in this situation.
WHITFIELD: Well, given President Bush has labeled North Korea as part of the axis of evil, obviously, there is going to be no diplomatic leverage that the U.S. has. I mean, that alone strains relations, if anything else, but China, Russia and Japan are being pressured to do something. China's already had some dialogue, as early as this morning with North Korea. Can anyone -- the international community count on those three countries kind of coming to the rescue here?
ALBRIGHT: Well, that's been at the heart of the administration policy through the fall and I'm not sure you can. China, it does not have a lot of interest putting economic sanctions on North Korea and watching it collapse. I mean finally a collapsed North Korea is not in China's interest. Russia doesn't have much leverage.
And so it's -- you have allies that have very conflicting interest and then you have the United States really not on top of it. So I am quite worried that this thing could just escalate and that we could, within a few months, be on a collision course with North Korea and it's not even necessary. I mean no one wants to go to war. It makes no sense. I mean it's very different than Iraq. I mean a war with North Korea in the initial stages could be devastating to South Korea. It could lead to nuclear weapons being dropped on Japan or chemical weapons delivered by missiles. And so, it's -- I think everyone wants to avoid war, but so far the administration is not sculpting a policy that gives me any confidence that they're not on a path away from war.
WHITFIELD: You see it's very different from the situation with Iraq, but at the same time, you see it's really as the same level of importance.
ALBRIGHT: I think North Korea in this situation is more dangerous than Iraq to us and our allies. And I think that the United States needs to devote more energy to dealing with this crisis in North Korean than it does to Iraq. I mean after all, the inspectors are in Iraq. There's a clear Security Council track to deal with Iraq. There is time to deal with Iraq. Iraq isn't -- we're not worried that Iraq will drop nuclear weapons on any of its neighbors and so, I do think that the crisis in North Korea is much more urgent for the United States to deal with.
WHITFIELD: And now, as of Tuesday, there will be no inspectors inside of North Korea. There are no international eyes keeping watch of things.
ALBRIGHT: No, that's very destabilizing. I mean it was good to have the inspectors in there and to know what's going on. For example, if North Korea moves the spent fuel over to the reprocessing plant, there's a good chance we won't even know it happens. I mean they can restart that plant and separate their bombs worth of plutonium within about two months if they work at it and they could have it all done within six months and then have about five more nuclear weapons.
So I think the inspectors played a very important role in creating stability in the situation and just calming the whole thing down. And now, people are going to start to get very worried and there'll be intelligence reports about activities. They may or may not be true. I mean it's very hard to assess North Korea's activities from afar. And so, I think it's a very, very disturbing development.
WHITFIELD: All right, David Albright, thank you very much.
ALBRIGHT: OK, 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 December 29, 2002 - 10:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: We get in-depth analysis now of North Korea's possible nuclear proliferation. David Albright is the co-author of the book, "Solving The North Korean Nuclear Puzzle" and he's also president of the Institute For Science and International Security in Washington where he is right now.
Good to see you.
DAVID ALBRIGHT, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: Good to be here.
WHITFIELD: All right, you heard Secretary of State Powell say there will be no strikes. Instead the Bush administration is taking the stance of containment. Are these steps in the right direction in your view?
ALBRIGHT: Well, they worry me. I mean it's hard to know what's going on in the mind of North Korea now. But it may be that they've just decided they want nuclear weapons and they want to try to expand their nuke arsenals rapidly as possible. And therefore, in that light, the U.S. policy may just be taking us on a path to war and yet we're not in any way prepared for that. So I do worry that their containment strategy is too much of a replay of what was happening in 1994.
WHITFIELD: How involved do you believe the U.S. ought to be given there are still so many unanswered questions about what the evidence of this activity is anyway?
ALBRIGHT: Well, I think they've suffered from a drift in their policy and I think they really need to get in control of the situation and that -- excuse me -- and I hope they will do that quickly. But so far, I have not been that encouraged.
It's a very dangerous regime. It has -- it's armed to the teeth with chemical and biological weapons. It may have one or two nuclear weapons. It feels like its back is up against the wall. It's a very paranoid state. And so, often we found in the last decade that just threatening them doesn't get them to back down. It just gets them to dig their heels in more. And so, I don't see much flexibility on the part of the administration on this issue.
For example, they say we won't negotiate until North Korea gets rid of its nuclear weapons program. Well, what does that actually mean? Does it mean they have to take one step in that direction by dismantling let's say this uranium enrichment program that they had been developing in secret or does it mean they have to get rid of everything they've done in secret? And so, there's a lot of, I think, just a very lack of clarity on what the United States wants out of North Korea in this situation.
WHITFIELD: Well, given President Bush has labeled North Korea as part of the axis of evil, obviously, there is going to be no diplomatic leverage that the U.S. has. I mean, that alone strains relations, if anything else, but China, Russia and Japan are being pressured to do something. China's already had some dialogue, as early as this morning with North Korea. Can anyone -- the international community count on those three countries kind of coming to the rescue here?
ALBRIGHT: Well, that's been at the heart of the administration policy through the fall and I'm not sure you can. China, it does not have a lot of interest putting economic sanctions on North Korea and watching it collapse. I mean finally a collapsed North Korea is not in China's interest. Russia doesn't have much leverage.
And so it's -- you have allies that have very conflicting interest and then you have the United States really not on top of it. So I am quite worried that this thing could just escalate and that we could, within a few months, be on a collision course with North Korea and it's not even necessary. I mean no one wants to go to war. It makes no sense. I mean it's very different than Iraq. I mean a war with North Korea in the initial stages could be devastating to South Korea. It could lead to nuclear weapons being dropped on Japan or chemical weapons delivered by missiles. And so, it's -- I think everyone wants to avoid war, but so far the administration is not sculpting a policy that gives me any confidence that they're not on a path away from war.
WHITFIELD: You see it's very different from the situation with Iraq, but at the same time, you see it's really as the same level of importance.
ALBRIGHT: I think North Korea in this situation is more dangerous than Iraq to us and our allies. And I think that the United States needs to devote more energy to dealing with this crisis in North Korean than it does to Iraq. I mean after all, the inspectors are in Iraq. There's a clear Security Council track to deal with Iraq. There is time to deal with Iraq. Iraq isn't -- we're not worried that Iraq will drop nuclear weapons on any of its neighbors and so, I do think that the crisis in North Korea is much more urgent for the United States to deal with.
WHITFIELD: And now, as of Tuesday, there will be no inspectors inside of North Korea. There are no international eyes keeping watch of things.
ALBRIGHT: No, that's very destabilizing. I mean it was good to have the inspectors in there and to know what's going on. For example, if North Korea moves the spent fuel over to the reprocessing plant, there's a good chance we won't even know it happens. I mean they can restart that plant and separate their bombs worth of plutonium within about two months if they work at it and they could have it all done within six months and then have about five more nuclear weapons.
So I think the inspectors played a very important role in creating stability in the situation and just calming the whole thing down. And now, people are going to start to get very worried and there'll be intelligence reports about activities. They may or may not be true. I mean it's very hard to assess North Korea's activities from afar. And so, I think it's a very, very disturbing development.
WHITFIELD: All right, David Albright, thank you very much.
ALBRIGHT: OK, 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
