Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

International Atomic Energy Agency to Issue Statement Against North Korea

Aired January 04, 2003 - 07:15   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.


JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: A senior U.S. official tells CNN the International Atomic Energy Agency plans to issue a strong statement against North Korea's nuclear program. But the IAEA is not expected to ask the U.N. Security Council for immediate action. We're told that the Bush administration will support the approach.
Our Dana Bash has more now on how the White House is handling the situation with North Korea.

DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Bush administration is sticking to its guns with regards to its policy towards North Korea, saying it won't be blackmailed, it won't engage in one-on-one negotiations, like what North Korea is asking for, because, they say, North Korea must back down, must not ramp up its nuclear program. When they stop doing that, the United States says, then they'll talk about negotiations.

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher on Friday said that the U.S. will not give into "threats or broken promises." And the U.S. really continues to work through its allies in the region, North Korea's neighbors, like South Korea and Japan and Russia, to try to work diplomatically to get them to convince North Korea to stop its nuclear program, to get those countries to use their leverage to force North Korea to do that.

Now, the president, for his part, spoke at Fort Hood Army Base here in Texas to troops and he said that he does intend to keep working diplomatically in North Korea as opposed to what he's doing in Iraq, which is really where they're on a war footing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We must and we will protect the American people and our friends and allies from catastrophic violence, wherever the source, whatever the threat. In the case of North Korea, the world must continue to speak with one voice to turn that regime away from its nuclear ambitions. In the case of Iraq, the world has already spoken with one voice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: The president went to Fort Hood, Texas, just about 80 miles from his home here in Crawford, to rally the troops and thank them for all of their work, all of their service to the country and told them how grateful he is for everything that they do. And he said while he doesn't want to go to war with Iraq, if that's his last option, it might be an option for them and they need to be ready for it -- back to you.

VAUSE: North Korea today described its dispute with the U.S. over Pyongyang's nuclear program as very serious and unpredictable. Next week, the U.S. will host a discussion on the situation with Japan and South Korea, but the U.S. has rejected talks with Pyongyang until North Korea gives up its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Well, joining us now from Washington to discuss this is Daniel Poneman, a former National Security Council official.

Mr. Poneman, if I could just start by asking you, the United States says no deal. How does that lead to a diplomatic solution?

DANIEL PONEMAN, FORMER NSC OFFICIAL: Well, when you come down to it, you really have only three choices. Either you take some form of military action vis-a-vis the program, which has been ruled out for now, or you isolate and contain it, which has also been ruled out, or you seek a diplomatic solution, which the president has said he is seeking.

Now, it's correct to say, as the administration has said, we shouldn't buy the same horse twice. At the same time, as you just indicated, we have the South Koreans and the Japanese coming to town. I think now is the opportunity to forge a common allied position among the U.S., Japan and Korea, present that to North Korea and hopefully seek a solution.

VAUSE: How much of a role will South Korea play in all of this? The officials there are obviously leaning towards cutting some kind of deal, allowing North Korea even keeping these nuclear weapons.

PONEMAN: I'm not sure that's right, actually. As I understand it, the South Korean official position still maintains that nuclear weapons in North Korea is unacceptable, a position, by the way, consistent with what the president said over the weekend, of the U.S. desiring a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula.

I do think it's extremely interesting that the incoming Noh administration in Seoul seems to be taking a more active role and given where the U.S. administration is in its reticence to engage directly, I think this is somebody to be explored actively by the three countries when they meet this Monday.

VAUSE: What does it say that South Korea has, in fact, turned to China in all of this as opposed to the United States? It's sending out its representatives to China. It seems to be seeking some kind of diplomatic solution through the Chinese rather than the United States.

PONEMAN: I wouldn't put it that way, actually. I don't think it's China rather than the United States. I think it's in addition. We have a 50 year alliance, a treaty alliance forged in blood, forged in the Korean War with Seoul. It's critical. Consultations are continuous. It, I think, is a very constructive sign that South Korea is also reaching out to China. China, as the U.S. has said, has a critical role to play here. And if we are, as the president indicated, to speak with one voice, I think Beijing needs to hear consistent messages from Seoul, Washington and Tokyo.

VAUSE: Isn't it true, though, that the whole diplomacy, that some of the hawks in the administration will say the '94 agreement was basically appeasement and when you appease a dictator, this is what happens, you get nuclear weapons? So therefore the diplomatic option really isn't all that strong.

PONEMAN: I actually don't agree with that perspective in the following sense. In 1994, the U.S. administration was confronted by a rampant, unconstrained plutonium production program. They had a five megawatt reactor in North Korea. It had already produced enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons. It had produced in spent fuel rods that are now sitting in a pond in Yongbyon enough plutonium for five or six more bombs. They were building a 50 and a 200 megawatt rector.

If the 1994 agreement had not been struck, North Korea would today be in possession of enough plutonium for about 100 nuclear weapons. Now, that agreement was not based on trust. We had, until last week, inspections in place in country continuously. Every day, I say, in Korea without new plutonium is a good day and that agreed framework provided us about eight years of no plutonium.

VAUSE: But we've now got this situation where you have a nuclear armed North Korea and basically all of the options don't look that good.

PONEMAN: There are no good options, that's certainly correct. But I also think that it's a mistake to simply assume based on the fact that North Korea could, from its available plutonium, have one or two nuclear weapons, assume that they do. Again, that's why I think it's so important that the president said that we advocate a non- nuclear peninsula. I don't believe it is safe to assume that North Korea either does or does not have nuclear weapons. I think we have to have a policy that they must not have nuclear weapons and then again forge a common position with our allies to achieve it.

VAUSE: How much of this posturing by North Korea, admitting that it has nuclear weapons, is all about trying to get negotiations with the United States, trying to improve its economic situation, trying to get more aid into the country, trying to feed its people?

PONEMAN: At the top of the list, I think you hit the nail on the head. I think that there's a very strong desire on the part of the North Koreans to engage directly with the United States. They say so over and over. I also think, if you listen to what they say and what they frankly have said for years and years, they express, and I think you have to at least to some degree credit a genuine anxiety about the United States and their fears that we are going to take some aggressive action against them.

The economic aid question obviously is something that they have sought repeatedly. But I think frankly there's a continuing concern of a Trojan horse variety in North Korea. They understand that they have a failing economic system internally, but I think they've also been very aware of what happened in countries like Romania and in Eastern Europe when they opened up to economic assistance from aboard. It tends to expose the internal contradictions of their own system and brings political risk to the regime, which is the last thing they want.

VAUSE: OK, Daniel Poneman there in Washington, thank you for joining us.

Daniel Poneman a former National Security Council official joining us there from Washington.

Now the situation in North Korea will be the focus of our Insight & Input segment coming up in the next hour. Rebecca MacKinnon will be joining us from Seoul, CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash joins us from Crawford, Texas and Brigadier General David Grange will all be along to take your questions on the subject.

So go ahead, send us an e-mail. The address is wam@cnn.com.

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





Against North Korea>


Aired January 4, 2003 - 07:15   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: A senior U.S. official tells CNN the International Atomic Energy Agency plans to issue a strong statement against North Korea's nuclear program. But the IAEA is not expected to ask the U.N. Security Council for immediate action. We're told that the Bush administration will support the approach.
Our Dana Bash has more now on how the White House is handling the situation with North Korea.

DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Bush administration is sticking to its guns with regards to its policy towards North Korea, saying it won't be blackmailed, it won't engage in one-on-one negotiations, like what North Korea is asking for, because, they say, North Korea must back down, must not ramp up its nuclear program. When they stop doing that, the United States says, then they'll talk about negotiations.

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher on Friday said that the U.S. will not give into "threats or broken promises." And the U.S. really continues to work through its allies in the region, North Korea's neighbors, like South Korea and Japan and Russia, to try to work diplomatically to get them to convince North Korea to stop its nuclear program, to get those countries to use their leverage to force North Korea to do that.

Now, the president, for his part, spoke at Fort Hood Army Base here in Texas to troops and he said that he does intend to keep working diplomatically in North Korea as opposed to what he's doing in Iraq, which is really where they're on a war footing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We must and we will protect the American people and our friends and allies from catastrophic violence, wherever the source, whatever the threat. In the case of North Korea, the world must continue to speak with one voice to turn that regime away from its nuclear ambitions. In the case of Iraq, the world has already spoken with one voice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: The president went to Fort Hood, Texas, just about 80 miles from his home here in Crawford, to rally the troops and thank them for all of their work, all of their service to the country and told them how grateful he is for everything that they do. And he said while he doesn't want to go to war with Iraq, if that's his last option, it might be an option for them and they need to be ready for it -- back to you.

VAUSE: North Korea today described its dispute with the U.S. over Pyongyang's nuclear program as very serious and unpredictable. Next week, the U.S. will host a discussion on the situation with Japan and South Korea, but the U.S. has rejected talks with Pyongyang until North Korea gives up its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Well, joining us now from Washington to discuss this is Daniel Poneman, a former National Security Council official.

Mr. Poneman, if I could just start by asking you, the United States says no deal. How does that lead to a diplomatic solution?

DANIEL PONEMAN, FORMER NSC OFFICIAL: Well, when you come down to it, you really have only three choices. Either you take some form of military action vis-a-vis the program, which has been ruled out for now, or you isolate and contain it, which has also been ruled out, or you seek a diplomatic solution, which the president has said he is seeking.

Now, it's correct to say, as the administration has said, we shouldn't buy the same horse twice. At the same time, as you just indicated, we have the South Koreans and the Japanese coming to town. I think now is the opportunity to forge a common allied position among the U.S., Japan and Korea, present that to North Korea and hopefully seek a solution.

VAUSE: How much of a role will South Korea play in all of this? The officials there are obviously leaning towards cutting some kind of deal, allowing North Korea even keeping these nuclear weapons.

PONEMAN: I'm not sure that's right, actually. As I understand it, the South Korean official position still maintains that nuclear weapons in North Korea is unacceptable, a position, by the way, consistent with what the president said over the weekend, of the U.S. desiring a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula.

I do think it's extremely interesting that the incoming Noh administration in Seoul seems to be taking a more active role and given where the U.S. administration is in its reticence to engage directly, I think this is somebody to be explored actively by the three countries when they meet this Monday.

VAUSE: What does it say that South Korea has, in fact, turned to China in all of this as opposed to the United States? It's sending out its representatives to China. It seems to be seeking some kind of diplomatic solution through the Chinese rather than the United States.

PONEMAN: I wouldn't put it that way, actually. I don't think it's China rather than the United States. I think it's in addition. We have a 50 year alliance, a treaty alliance forged in blood, forged in the Korean War with Seoul. It's critical. Consultations are continuous. It, I think, is a very constructive sign that South Korea is also reaching out to China. China, as the U.S. has said, has a critical role to play here. And if we are, as the president indicated, to speak with one voice, I think Beijing needs to hear consistent messages from Seoul, Washington and Tokyo.

VAUSE: Isn't it true, though, that the whole diplomacy, that some of the hawks in the administration will say the '94 agreement was basically appeasement and when you appease a dictator, this is what happens, you get nuclear weapons? So therefore the diplomatic option really isn't all that strong.

PONEMAN: I actually don't agree with that perspective in the following sense. In 1994, the U.S. administration was confronted by a rampant, unconstrained plutonium production program. They had a five megawatt reactor in North Korea. It had already produced enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons. It had produced in spent fuel rods that are now sitting in a pond in Yongbyon enough plutonium for five or six more bombs. They were building a 50 and a 200 megawatt rector.

If the 1994 agreement had not been struck, North Korea would today be in possession of enough plutonium for about 100 nuclear weapons. Now, that agreement was not based on trust. We had, until last week, inspections in place in country continuously. Every day, I say, in Korea without new plutonium is a good day and that agreed framework provided us about eight years of no plutonium.

VAUSE: But we've now got this situation where you have a nuclear armed North Korea and basically all of the options don't look that good.

PONEMAN: There are no good options, that's certainly correct. But I also think that it's a mistake to simply assume based on the fact that North Korea could, from its available plutonium, have one or two nuclear weapons, assume that they do. Again, that's why I think it's so important that the president said that we advocate a non- nuclear peninsula. I don't believe it is safe to assume that North Korea either does or does not have nuclear weapons. I think we have to have a policy that they must not have nuclear weapons and then again forge a common position with our allies to achieve it.

VAUSE: How much of this posturing by North Korea, admitting that it has nuclear weapons, is all about trying to get negotiations with the United States, trying to improve its economic situation, trying to get more aid into the country, trying to feed its people?

PONEMAN: At the top of the list, I think you hit the nail on the head. I think that there's a very strong desire on the part of the North Koreans to engage directly with the United States. They say so over and over. I also think, if you listen to what they say and what they frankly have said for years and years, they express, and I think you have to at least to some degree credit a genuine anxiety about the United States and their fears that we are going to take some aggressive action against them.

The economic aid question obviously is something that they have sought repeatedly. But I think frankly there's a continuing concern of a Trojan horse variety in North Korea. They understand that they have a failing economic system internally, but I think they've also been very aware of what happened in countries like Romania and in Eastern Europe when they opened up to economic assistance from aboard. It tends to expose the internal contradictions of their own system and brings political risk to the regime, which is the last thing they want.

VAUSE: OK, Daniel Poneman there in Washington, thank you for joining us.

Daniel Poneman a former National Security Council official joining us there from Washington.

Now the situation in North Korea will be the focus of our Insight & Input segment coming up in the next hour. Rebecca MacKinnon will be joining us from Seoul, CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash joins us from Crawford, Texas and Brigadier General David Grange will all be along to take your questions on the subject.

So go ahead, send us an e-mail. The address is wam@cnn.com.

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





Against North Korea>