Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
How to Prevent Rogue States From Developing Nuclear Weapons
Aired December 14, 2002 - 08:33 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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: OK, it's time now for our Insights & Input segment. That's when we give you a chance to get the lowdown from CNN correspondents and contributors about what's happening in the news.
CHARLES MOLINEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And we want to hear from you. Call us toll-free with your questions and comments. Today we're talking to CNN senior correspondent Nic Robertson. He is in Iraq. Our Seoul bureau chief Sohn Jie-Ae is joining us from Seoul. And CNN security analyst Kelly McCann is with us from Washington.
Hello and thanks for being with us.
NEVILLE: Good morning to all of you.
J. KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Good morning.
NEVILLE: We're going to get right to the phones, where dean is standing by in Tampa.
Go ahead, Dean.
Good morning.
DEAN: Yes, good morning, folks.
With nations such as North Korea and Iran building up their nuclear programs, what can be done to prevent nations such as these from eventually making weapons and then selling them to third parties in other nations, like we saw earlier this week with North Korea and that shipment of SCUDs to Yemen?
NEVILLE: Kelly, do you want to take that?
MCCANN: Sure.
I mean it's an interesting question because to the extent that we can limit people from making peaceful nuclear weapons or nuclear sites, I mean, to create energy, I mean where does the line stop? The trick is to determine at the early stages whether those facilities producing fissile materials are meant to make them for weapons or not. That's the first chance that we can intervene and engage the U.N. and also the Atomic Energy Agency that's going to be inspecting these sites.
But as far as the rest of the question, how do we prevent them from getting to people who would use them against us, that goes to a scrutiny and intelligence question. What countries are we scrutinizing and why? What kind of intelligence do we have on those countries? And then what efforts can we use coalition partners or other allies to intervene?
So it's a complicated question and a good one.
MOLINEAUX: Jie-Ae, we have a question about the axis of evil issue. Bob from Canada e-mailed in, "Why does it appear it is only the U.S. that is concerned by the activities of the axis of evil? What's wrong with, say, China being given the task of controlling North Korea, Russia specifically given the task of monitoring Iran? We have to have some trust here and the above mentioned nations are all permanent members of the Security Council."
Jai-Ae, what do you think?
SOHN JIE-AE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, at this point it's a good point, China does have much more influence upon North Korea. It is a traditional ally of North Korea. But the United States has traditionally been very strong in the non-proliferation stage and North Korea at this point wants something from the United States. They want to formalize relations with the United States and they need the relationship to build, to get more economic aid, which they desperately need. So for this issue, it might be that the United States is in a better position, a better bargaining and negotiating position to deal directly with one of these countries forming the axis of evil -- Charles.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, we have another e-mail coming in now from Henry in Modesta, Maryland. He says, "People who wonder why we treat North Korea or Iran differently than Iraq are being disingenuous or naive. Neither Iran nor North Korea are as much a threat to Israel as Iraq. North Korea may have a couple of nukes already and definitely has a well developed missile program, but it will be able to hit America long before Israel, so why worry about it? It should be clear by now that this administration puts Israeli lives ahead of American lives. To figure out the administration's course of action, one just has to figure out what Israelis' interests are."
And Nic Robertson, we'd like to hear from you on this one.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Certainly that's a view put across by the Iraqi government here. They very much link the Palestinian cause to their wider efforts in this region to get support from other Arab countries. Of course, the missiles that Iraq has had in the past were SCUD missiles, that the weapons inspectors are right now checking to make sure they don't have, are capable of reaching cities in Israel, Tel Aviv, a very major conurbation (ph) and a biologically tipped warhead on a SCUD missile hitting that city could have disastrous effect.
But that really is the position of the Iraqi government, that they do just see the resolution that's in place right now as part of the U.S. administration's plans to have some aggressive act against Iraq and they say all that is lumped in with the United States' support of Israel and they really try and use this issue in the region to win friends and win support here.
MOLINEAUX: Kelly, let's have your take on this one, too. Again, the comment was, "Neither Iran nor North Korea are as much a threat to Israel as Iraq," Israel being the key concern in this writer's, Henry from Bethesda's mind.
What about that? Is that a legitimate point?
MCCANN: Well, Henry's question is centric. In other words, it's centric to Israel and I don't think that anybody in our administration has made this whole instance that we're in right now centric, as well. It's more of a global issue, the global proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the global proliferation of terrorism. So I think that the question is worded in a way that there's not a global answer to that centric a question because I personally don't agree that, in fact, all of this is because of Israel.
I think it's a larger issue.
NEVILLE: OK, let's go to California. Lois is up quite early.
Good morning, Lois.
Your question?
LOIS: My question is who gave America the right to have weapons of mass destruction and other countries can't?
NEVILLE: Interesting.
Let's get Jia-Ae's take on that.
JIE-AE: Well, that actually is a point that's made by North Korea and by some here in South Korea. It is actually, we have been out there the anti-American protests and that is the point that some of the South Koreans have made. They have said well, the United States say they don't want countries, other countries owning weapons of mass destruction. They're putting the pressure on North Korea. But they seem to don't take the same issue on countries that already have weapons of mass destruction. So why pick on countries like North Korea?
Of course, that is not, that goes against the United States' whole non-proliferation treaty, the, what they want the world to be non-proliferated as a whole.
But from countries like North Korea and from bordering countries like South Korea, that is very much a very central issue and a question that's coming up very recently a lot these days here in South Korea.
MOLINEAUX: Kelly, same question for you, really. The U.S. not only has weapons of mass destruction, but, of course, used nuclear weapons in WWII. European powers used chemical weapons in WWI. So what about this? Is there some concern that perhaps it's disingenuous to say no one else should have them? MCCANN: Not if their controls are similar and as stringent as ours. If you look at how we control nuclear material and nuclear production and nuclear weapons, it's significantly different from some of the countries who are also wanting to go in that direction. Similarly, we adhere to the law of land warfare and the international, we are a signatory to the Geneva Convention. A lot of the countries that are wanting to be superpowers by virtue of having a nuclear weapon or a weapons of mass destruction are not.
So if you look at it unemotionally, you say there are more controls and more oversight on our production and use of those weapons than some of these other countries, and that is, in fact, the scary thing. Where will they end up?
NEVILLE: Well, Kelly, another question for you is that the U.S. has agreed to resolve the North Korea situation peacefully. So I ask you why peace with North Korea and force with Iraq?
MCCANN: Because of the level of discussion. I mean I think that there is no, it's not as contentious or it has not been as contentious. We know what we did with Iraq. We had previous war experience with them. We did in place inspectors. They were eventually put out of the country. So they're on report, if you might say.
If you look at North Korea, I mean we're not at that same level of contentiousness, or haven't been. Sure, there's been a low rumbling, but it hasn't come to the crescendo level, I think, that Iraq has.
So it's a matter of degrees.
MOLINEAUX: Sohn Jie-Ae, you talk about some of the arguments advanced in North Korea. But what about the situation in South Korea? Obviously a very important component to any addressing of the issue on the peninsula and yet it seems that the war on terror and the United States has run into some rocky roads on the street there.
JIE-AE: It sure has. I mean South Korea may be one of the reasons why the situation on the Korean Peninsula is so different from Iraq. Now, the South Korean government has had a policy of engaging the North throughout the five years of this president's administration. They've believed that the road to tame North Korea is to engage it, to give it, to make economic ties, to have social ties in order to induce North Korea to come to a better path, to give up its nuclear systems and so forth.
Now, the anti-American protest that is swelling up these days, that we've just come out of, is actually at a certain, at a specific incident concerning U.S. troops in South Korea. But on a deeper level, it has resentment against the United States for seemingly to go against what seems to be a successful policy that has been on the Korean Peninsula for the past five years, that has seemed to have brought the two Koreas closer than they have been for the past 50 years. So there is a resentment against the hard-line policy that the Bush administration is training towards North Korea and that seems to be reflected on the very strong anti-American protests that we've seen recently on Seoul's streets.
MOLINEAUX: Thank you very much, Sohn Jie-Ae, as well as Nic Robertson and Kelly McCann. We do appreciate your joining us.
Again, this is Insights & Input, and we do want to hear from our viewers on this as we go on with this new segment.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Weapons>
Aired December 14, 2002 - 08:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: OK, it's time now for our Insights & Input segment. That's when we give you a chance to get the lowdown from CNN correspondents and contributors about what's happening in the news.
CHARLES MOLINEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And we want to hear from you. Call us toll-free with your questions and comments. Today we're talking to CNN senior correspondent Nic Robertson. He is in Iraq. Our Seoul bureau chief Sohn Jie-Ae is joining us from Seoul. And CNN security analyst Kelly McCann is with us from Washington.
Hello and thanks for being with us.
NEVILLE: Good morning to all of you.
J. KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Good morning.
NEVILLE: We're going to get right to the phones, where dean is standing by in Tampa.
Go ahead, Dean.
Good morning.
DEAN: Yes, good morning, folks.
With nations such as North Korea and Iran building up their nuclear programs, what can be done to prevent nations such as these from eventually making weapons and then selling them to third parties in other nations, like we saw earlier this week with North Korea and that shipment of SCUDs to Yemen?
NEVILLE: Kelly, do you want to take that?
MCCANN: Sure.
I mean it's an interesting question because to the extent that we can limit people from making peaceful nuclear weapons or nuclear sites, I mean, to create energy, I mean where does the line stop? The trick is to determine at the early stages whether those facilities producing fissile materials are meant to make them for weapons or not. That's the first chance that we can intervene and engage the U.N. and also the Atomic Energy Agency that's going to be inspecting these sites.
But as far as the rest of the question, how do we prevent them from getting to people who would use them against us, that goes to a scrutiny and intelligence question. What countries are we scrutinizing and why? What kind of intelligence do we have on those countries? And then what efforts can we use coalition partners or other allies to intervene?
So it's a complicated question and a good one.
MOLINEAUX: Jie-Ae, we have a question about the axis of evil issue. Bob from Canada e-mailed in, "Why does it appear it is only the U.S. that is concerned by the activities of the axis of evil? What's wrong with, say, China being given the task of controlling North Korea, Russia specifically given the task of monitoring Iran? We have to have some trust here and the above mentioned nations are all permanent members of the Security Council."
Jai-Ae, what do you think?
SOHN JIE-AE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, at this point it's a good point, China does have much more influence upon North Korea. It is a traditional ally of North Korea. But the United States has traditionally been very strong in the non-proliferation stage and North Korea at this point wants something from the United States. They want to formalize relations with the United States and they need the relationship to build, to get more economic aid, which they desperately need. So for this issue, it might be that the United States is in a better position, a better bargaining and negotiating position to deal directly with one of these countries forming the axis of evil -- Charles.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, we have another e-mail coming in now from Henry in Modesta, Maryland. He says, "People who wonder why we treat North Korea or Iran differently than Iraq are being disingenuous or naive. Neither Iran nor North Korea are as much a threat to Israel as Iraq. North Korea may have a couple of nukes already and definitely has a well developed missile program, but it will be able to hit America long before Israel, so why worry about it? It should be clear by now that this administration puts Israeli lives ahead of American lives. To figure out the administration's course of action, one just has to figure out what Israelis' interests are."
And Nic Robertson, we'd like to hear from you on this one.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Certainly that's a view put across by the Iraqi government here. They very much link the Palestinian cause to their wider efforts in this region to get support from other Arab countries. Of course, the missiles that Iraq has had in the past were SCUD missiles, that the weapons inspectors are right now checking to make sure they don't have, are capable of reaching cities in Israel, Tel Aviv, a very major conurbation (ph) and a biologically tipped warhead on a SCUD missile hitting that city could have disastrous effect.
But that really is the position of the Iraqi government, that they do just see the resolution that's in place right now as part of the U.S. administration's plans to have some aggressive act against Iraq and they say all that is lumped in with the United States' support of Israel and they really try and use this issue in the region to win friends and win support here.
MOLINEAUX: Kelly, let's have your take on this one, too. Again, the comment was, "Neither Iran nor North Korea are as much a threat to Israel as Iraq," Israel being the key concern in this writer's, Henry from Bethesda's mind.
What about that? Is that a legitimate point?
MCCANN: Well, Henry's question is centric. In other words, it's centric to Israel and I don't think that anybody in our administration has made this whole instance that we're in right now centric, as well. It's more of a global issue, the global proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the global proliferation of terrorism. So I think that the question is worded in a way that there's not a global answer to that centric a question because I personally don't agree that, in fact, all of this is because of Israel.
I think it's a larger issue.
NEVILLE: OK, let's go to California. Lois is up quite early.
Good morning, Lois.
Your question?
LOIS: My question is who gave America the right to have weapons of mass destruction and other countries can't?
NEVILLE: Interesting.
Let's get Jia-Ae's take on that.
JIE-AE: Well, that actually is a point that's made by North Korea and by some here in South Korea. It is actually, we have been out there the anti-American protests and that is the point that some of the South Koreans have made. They have said well, the United States say they don't want countries, other countries owning weapons of mass destruction. They're putting the pressure on North Korea. But they seem to don't take the same issue on countries that already have weapons of mass destruction. So why pick on countries like North Korea?
Of course, that is not, that goes against the United States' whole non-proliferation treaty, the, what they want the world to be non-proliferated as a whole.
But from countries like North Korea and from bordering countries like South Korea, that is very much a very central issue and a question that's coming up very recently a lot these days here in South Korea.
MOLINEAUX: Kelly, same question for you, really. The U.S. not only has weapons of mass destruction, but, of course, used nuclear weapons in WWII. European powers used chemical weapons in WWI. So what about this? Is there some concern that perhaps it's disingenuous to say no one else should have them? MCCANN: Not if their controls are similar and as stringent as ours. If you look at how we control nuclear material and nuclear production and nuclear weapons, it's significantly different from some of the countries who are also wanting to go in that direction. Similarly, we adhere to the law of land warfare and the international, we are a signatory to the Geneva Convention. A lot of the countries that are wanting to be superpowers by virtue of having a nuclear weapon or a weapons of mass destruction are not.
So if you look at it unemotionally, you say there are more controls and more oversight on our production and use of those weapons than some of these other countries, and that is, in fact, the scary thing. Where will they end up?
NEVILLE: Well, Kelly, another question for you is that the U.S. has agreed to resolve the North Korea situation peacefully. So I ask you why peace with North Korea and force with Iraq?
MCCANN: Because of the level of discussion. I mean I think that there is no, it's not as contentious or it has not been as contentious. We know what we did with Iraq. We had previous war experience with them. We did in place inspectors. They were eventually put out of the country. So they're on report, if you might say.
If you look at North Korea, I mean we're not at that same level of contentiousness, or haven't been. Sure, there's been a low rumbling, but it hasn't come to the crescendo level, I think, that Iraq has.
So it's a matter of degrees.
MOLINEAUX: Sohn Jie-Ae, you talk about some of the arguments advanced in North Korea. But what about the situation in South Korea? Obviously a very important component to any addressing of the issue on the peninsula and yet it seems that the war on terror and the United States has run into some rocky roads on the street there.
JIE-AE: It sure has. I mean South Korea may be one of the reasons why the situation on the Korean Peninsula is so different from Iraq. Now, the South Korean government has had a policy of engaging the North throughout the five years of this president's administration. They've believed that the road to tame North Korea is to engage it, to give it, to make economic ties, to have social ties in order to induce North Korea to come to a better path, to give up its nuclear systems and so forth.
Now, the anti-American protest that is swelling up these days, that we've just come out of, is actually at a certain, at a specific incident concerning U.S. troops in South Korea. But on a deeper level, it has resentment against the United States for seemingly to go against what seems to be a successful policy that has been on the Korean Peninsula for the past five years, that has seemed to have brought the two Koreas closer than they have been for the past 50 years. So there is a resentment against the hard-line policy that the Bush administration is training towards North Korea and that seems to be reflected on the very strong anti-American protests that we've seen recently on Seoul's streets.
MOLINEAUX: Thank you very much, Sohn Jie-Ae, as well as Nic Robertson and Kelly McCann. We do appreciate your joining us.
Again, this is Insights & Input, and we do want to hear from our viewers on this as we go on with this new segment.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Weapons>
