Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Insights And Input Segment

Aired January 04, 2003 - 08:30   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: OK, time now for our Insight and Input segment. That's where we talk to CNN reporters and contributors to get the story behind the story in our and we answer some of your questions as well.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: That's right. Joining us today for more on the standoff over North Korea's nuclear program Rebecca MacKinnon in Seoul, South Korea, CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash, who joins us from Crawford, Texas and Brigadier General David Grange, a CNN military analyst. He is joining us from Oakbrook, Illinois.

Good morning to you all, and thanks for being here. Let's go ahead and start. Dana, I think I have a question for you that someone has written in from Hyattsville, Maryland.

It says, "It's obvious. Does the panel believe that the Bush administration looks pretty bad in their stance on North Korea and Iraq preparing to attack a country that seem to be complying with weapons inspectors and willing to solve the problem in North Korea diplomatically when North Korea has expelled inspectors and say they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons. The real objective is clear now, oil and control of the oil."

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, what the administration has said over the past couple of weeks when been asked over and over again about their different policies with regard to these two countries, to these two members of what President Bush has called the axis of evil is that with regard to North Korea, they believe that they can deal with this diplomatically. They believe that North Korea has been dealt with diplomatically before, that in 1994, they did sign an agreement to promise not to -- to stop its nuclear programs and that they really feel like there is enough political pressure that the allies in the region, like South Korea and China and Russia, can put on North Korea to try to get them to back down in the move that they're making.

But with regard to Iraq, they say, look, Saddam Hussein has not complied with 11 years of U.N. resolutions, with you know a decade of international pressure to stop making weapons of mass destruction. And they say that Saddam Hussein has a past of invading other countries and whereas North Korea, you haven't seen anything like that in half a century.

So, they really are trying to make clear that there is a different policy. The other thing that you have to remember is that if North Korea does have nuclear capability, then that's a really dangerous thing to be doing to be threatening military action in that country, especially since we have 37,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea and South Korea really would be at severe risk even if North Korea didn't use its nuclear weapons, even if they used conventional weapons. So there is a real risk to the neighbors in the region there.

VAUSE: OK Dana, I think we're going to take a phone call now. We go to Dean from Florida, and I think this should go to Rebecca, but Dean (ph) in Florida on the phone, go ahead with your question.

CALLER: Yes, good morning, folks. With recent tensions in North Korea and also the fact that South Korea has had recent protests regarding anti-U.S. sentiments, how do you see maybe possibly not maybe in the near future, but do you see a unification possibility with North and South or is the difference so strong that perhaps maybe us against the world theory might not actually make them unify in the near future?

REBECCA MACKINNON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, at this point nobody here in South Korea believes that unification could happen any time soon. Now there's certainly a lot of people who hope that this will happen at some point in the very distant future, but practically speaking, even though North and South Korea do have some contact going on, there's a little bit of investment going from South to North Korea. The prospect of unification is extremely far away.

But what we do have is we have with the rising anti-American sentiment, it's really directed at the presence of U.S. troops. There are people here who feel that an imposition on the resources, on the population here, and also just the feeling that the U.S. needs to treat South Korea more as an equal partner rather than just do what the United States tells the South Koreans to do.

And so now, what we have with this current crisis, we have South Korea trying to take a more active role in promoting some kind of compromised solution between the United States and North Korea to try and resolve this crisis. The South Korean government really asking Washington to let them take more of the lead. But when it comes to things like unification, realistically speaking, people here believe that is most likely decades down the road, but it is something that's considered eventually desirable.

COLLINS: All right, General Grange, question, actually three or four questions for you in this next e-mail coming to us from Peter in Providence, Rhode Island.

"Is South Korea still dependent on the continued presence of U.S. troops for its security? What strategic national interest of the U.S. are these troops protecting in today's geopolitical environment and what would happen if the U.S. troops left and the U.S. became an ally on call?"

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, the United States made a commitment after the ceasefire in the Korean War in 1952, and we've honored that commitment for almost, you know, 50 years. And you know the United States, unless the treaty has changed, is not going to pull out of South Korea. The presence of American troops in South Korea have caused it not to have North Korea attacked.

It's definitely a trip wire. It's not a large force, and it's a combined effort. In other words, the strategy to defend South Korea is a combination of South Korean forces and American forces and some other allies in the region to deter North Korea from attacking.

VAUSE: OK, let's take another e-mail. This one is directed at -- it's for General Grange again, I think.

"With the growing threats of multiple fronts, what is the policy for deployment of nuclear weapons by the United States? Is there a possibility of the United States using tactical nuclear weapons to seize one war and avoid the need to attack another sovereign nation? What would be the global implication -- be -- and could this cause fringe groups to retaliate against the United States or its allies?"

Wow, that's a big one.

GRANGE: Yes, the -- you know if we had to engage in Iraq and North Korea at the same time, though our strategy calls for the capability to do so, defeat one silently (ph) and eventually defeat the other in a holding action, and I believe that could be done, but it would be very difficult. If North Korea was dumb enough to employ a nuclear weapon in that region, you know, the United States probably would have no option but to retaliate to honor its treaties with limited nuclear response.

But I don't think North Korea will do that. I think North Korea has taken advantage if the current situation, of the massive commitment of America's armed forces globally to get -- to get something out of the situation. And hopefully it won't come to that, and I don't think it will come to that. But you keep in mind the North Korea situation, different than Iraq, that you have large countries in the region, China, Japan, and South Korea itself that will also help deter North Korea. Iraq, there's no one to deter Iraq except for the United States of America and a few other coalition partners.

COLLINS: And speaking of all of those other countries, this one just kind of goes out to all of you, whoever wants to jump in here.

"What is our national interest in the North Korean issue? We should not be leading this issue, but let South Korea, Japan, China, Russia lead this issue as it truly is in their national interest. We don't need to risk American lives and dollars to be the world police, especially when we're not wanted." That's coming to us from New York City.

BASH: Well, I'll just jump in there and say...

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: ... that that's exactly what the...

(CROSSTALK)

MACKINNON: Certainly, the...

COLLINS: Dana, we'll come to you next. Go ahead, Rebecca.

BASH: Go ahead Rebecca.

MACKINNON: OK, sure. Just the real feeling from here in South Korea is that the United States should certainly let Seoul take a more active lead, because as one often hears pointed out here, that if a conflict were to come to pass, it's the civilians here in South Korea who would suffer the greatest number of casualties and so, therefore, the U.S. really does need to listen to South Korea's opinion and advise when moving forward.

VAUSE: Dana, maybe you want to pull up what's the administration's stance on that?

BASH: Well it's exactly the same, which is that's really what the administration has been saying, that they intend to and they are working through those neighbors because those are the countries that are really at the most risk if North Korea does attack and does use its nuclear capability. And that those -- that the national interest -- it's certainly the national interest of the United States to make sure that there aren't what the United States would term a rogue country -- rogue countries that have nuclear weapons, but their strategy is definitely to work through those countries, no question about it.

COLLINS: Rebecca MacKinnon, one more question to you coming from John (ph) in North Carolina. He's on the phone with us now.

CALLER: Rebecca, I was a combat camera crew chief (UNINTELLIGIBLE) release, and the North Koreans could care less what the world thinks about them. And the other thing I've never heard anything said about was every other day that we were there, the North Koreans shut (ph) two agents across -- tried to put two agents across the DMZ. And if they're - what happens in South Korea, if those two agents aren't caught or killed, the whole country, South Korea, goes on alert, OK?

But every other day, they would attempt to put two agents across there and they're probably still doing the same thing today, but I haven't heard anybody talk about that.

VAUSE: Yes, John (ph), have you actually got a question for Rebecca...

CALLER: The other thing is they wanted to negotiate or deal that thing, they need to get General Woodward. He's was the negotiator there during the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). He's one of the sharpest guys I've ever seen in my life. He was really cool.

VAUSE: OK. John (ph), thank you for that. Have we got time for one more e-mail...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.

VAUSE: We've got time for one more. Let's go, very quickly. Whoever wants to pick it up.

"The current situation with North Korea may be China's opportunity to finally enter the world stage as a major diplomatic power." Anyone want to pick that one up?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well...

MACKINNON: I can pick that one up having been based in China before.

VAUSE: Yes, quickly, Rebecca.

MACKINNON: Basically, China is in a very -- yes, China's situation is very much on the fence, because China is an ally of North Korea. It also is engaging the United States and South Korea. But China has not been willing, so far, to really pull the plug to say to North Korea if you don't ratchet down these tensions, if you don't drop your nuclear program, we are going to cut off aid.

Part of that reason is that China does not want to see North Korea collapse. It would have a terrible refugee situation on its border if that were to happen, so it's really walking a fine line.

VAUSE: OK, to all of you, thank you very much for our very insightful panel there, the input and insights there, Rebecca MacKinnon and Dana Bash and General Grange there giving us their expert opinions in the field.

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 4, 2003 - 08:30   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: OK, time now for our Insight and Input segment. That's where we talk to CNN reporters and contributors to get the story behind the story in our and we answer some of your questions as well.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: That's right. Joining us today for more on the standoff over North Korea's nuclear program Rebecca MacKinnon in Seoul, South Korea, CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash, who joins us from Crawford, Texas and Brigadier General David Grange, a CNN military analyst. He is joining us from Oakbrook, Illinois.

Good morning to you all, and thanks for being here. Let's go ahead and start. Dana, I think I have a question for you that someone has written in from Hyattsville, Maryland.

It says, "It's obvious. Does the panel believe that the Bush administration looks pretty bad in their stance on North Korea and Iraq preparing to attack a country that seem to be complying with weapons inspectors and willing to solve the problem in North Korea diplomatically when North Korea has expelled inspectors and say they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons. The real objective is clear now, oil and control of the oil."

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, what the administration has said over the past couple of weeks when been asked over and over again about their different policies with regard to these two countries, to these two members of what President Bush has called the axis of evil is that with regard to North Korea, they believe that they can deal with this diplomatically. They believe that North Korea has been dealt with diplomatically before, that in 1994, they did sign an agreement to promise not to -- to stop its nuclear programs and that they really feel like there is enough political pressure that the allies in the region, like South Korea and China and Russia, can put on North Korea to try to get them to back down in the move that they're making.

But with regard to Iraq, they say, look, Saddam Hussein has not complied with 11 years of U.N. resolutions, with you know a decade of international pressure to stop making weapons of mass destruction. And they say that Saddam Hussein has a past of invading other countries and whereas North Korea, you haven't seen anything like that in half a century.

So, they really are trying to make clear that there is a different policy. The other thing that you have to remember is that if North Korea does have nuclear capability, then that's a really dangerous thing to be doing to be threatening military action in that country, especially since we have 37,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea and South Korea really would be at severe risk even if North Korea didn't use its nuclear weapons, even if they used conventional weapons. So there is a real risk to the neighbors in the region there.

VAUSE: OK Dana, I think we're going to take a phone call now. We go to Dean from Florida, and I think this should go to Rebecca, but Dean (ph) in Florida on the phone, go ahead with your question.

CALLER: Yes, good morning, folks. With recent tensions in North Korea and also the fact that South Korea has had recent protests regarding anti-U.S. sentiments, how do you see maybe possibly not maybe in the near future, but do you see a unification possibility with North and South or is the difference so strong that perhaps maybe us against the world theory might not actually make them unify in the near future?

REBECCA MACKINNON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, at this point nobody here in South Korea believes that unification could happen any time soon. Now there's certainly a lot of people who hope that this will happen at some point in the very distant future, but practically speaking, even though North and South Korea do have some contact going on, there's a little bit of investment going from South to North Korea. The prospect of unification is extremely far away.

But what we do have is we have with the rising anti-American sentiment, it's really directed at the presence of U.S. troops. There are people here who feel that an imposition on the resources, on the population here, and also just the feeling that the U.S. needs to treat South Korea more as an equal partner rather than just do what the United States tells the South Koreans to do.

And so now, what we have with this current crisis, we have South Korea trying to take a more active role in promoting some kind of compromised solution between the United States and North Korea to try and resolve this crisis. The South Korean government really asking Washington to let them take more of the lead. But when it comes to things like unification, realistically speaking, people here believe that is most likely decades down the road, but it is something that's considered eventually desirable.

COLLINS: All right, General Grange, question, actually three or four questions for you in this next e-mail coming to us from Peter in Providence, Rhode Island.

"Is South Korea still dependent on the continued presence of U.S. troops for its security? What strategic national interest of the U.S. are these troops protecting in today's geopolitical environment and what would happen if the U.S. troops left and the U.S. became an ally on call?"

BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, the United States made a commitment after the ceasefire in the Korean War in 1952, and we've honored that commitment for almost, you know, 50 years. And you know the United States, unless the treaty has changed, is not going to pull out of South Korea. The presence of American troops in South Korea have caused it not to have North Korea attacked.

It's definitely a trip wire. It's not a large force, and it's a combined effort. In other words, the strategy to defend South Korea is a combination of South Korean forces and American forces and some other allies in the region to deter North Korea from attacking.

VAUSE: OK, let's take another e-mail. This one is directed at -- it's for General Grange again, I think.

"With the growing threats of multiple fronts, what is the policy for deployment of nuclear weapons by the United States? Is there a possibility of the United States using tactical nuclear weapons to seize one war and avoid the need to attack another sovereign nation? What would be the global implication -- be -- and could this cause fringe groups to retaliate against the United States or its allies?"

Wow, that's a big one.

GRANGE: Yes, the -- you know if we had to engage in Iraq and North Korea at the same time, though our strategy calls for the capability to do so, defeat one silently (ph) and eventually defeat the other in a holding action, and I believe that could be done, but it would be very difficult. If North Korea was dumb enough to employ a nuclear weapon in that region, you know, the United States probably would have no option but to retaliate to honor its treaties with limited nuclear response.

But I don't think North Korea will do that. I think North Korea has taken advantage if the current situation, of the massive commitment of America's armed forces globally to get -- to get something out of the situation. And hopefully it won't come to that, and I don't think it will come to that. But you keep in mind the North Korea situation, different than Iraq, that you have large countries in the region, China, Japan, and South Korea itself that will also help deter North Korea. Iraq, there's no one to deter Iraq except for the United States of America and a few other coalition partners.

COLLINS: And speaking of all of those other countries, this one just kind of goes out to all of you, whoever wants to jump in here.

"What is our national interest in the North Korean issue? We should not be leading this issue, but let South Korea, Japan, China, Russia lead this issue as it truly is in their national interest. We don't need to risk American lives and dollars to be the world police, especially when we're not wanted." That's coming to us from New York City.

BASH: Well, I'll just jump in there and say...

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: ... that that's exactly what the...

(CROSSTALK)

MACKINNON: Certainly, the...

COLLINS: Dana, we'll come to you next. Go ahead, Rebecca.

BASH: Go ahead Rebecca.

MACKINNON: OK, sure. Just the real feeling from here in South Korea is that the United States should certainly let Seoul take a more active lead, because as one often hears pointed out here, that if a conflict were to come to pass, it's the civilians here in South Korea who would suffer the greatest number of casualties and so, therefore, the U.S. really does need to listen to South Korea's opinion and advise when moving forward.

VAUSE: Dana, maybe you want to pull up what's the administration's stance on that?

BASH: Well it's exactly the same, which is that's really what the administration has been saying, that they intend to and they are working through those neighbors because those are the countries that are really at the most risk if North Korea does attack and does use its nuclear capability. And that those -- that the national interest -- it's certainly the national interest of the United States to make sure that there aren't what the United States would term a rogue country -- rogue countries that have nuclear weapons, but their strategy is definitely to work through those countries, no question about it.

COLLINS: Rebecca MacKinnon, one more question to you coming from John (ph) in North Carolina. He's on the phone with us now.

CALLER: Rebecca, I was a combat camera crew chief (UNINTELLIGIBLE) release, and the North Koreans could care less what the world thinks about them. And the other thing I've never heard anything said about was every other day that we were there, the North Koreans shut (ph) two agents across -- tried to put two agents across the DMZ. And if they're - what happens in South Korea, if those two agents aren't caught or killed, the whole country, South Korea, goes on alert, OK?

But every other day, they would attempt to put two agents across there and they're probably still doing the same thing today, but I haven't heard anybody talk about that.

VAUSE: Yes, John (ph), have you actually got a question for Rebecca...

CALLER: The other thing is they wanted to negotiate or deal that thing, they need to get General Woodward. He's was the negotiator there during the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). He's one of the sharpest guys I've ever seen in my life. He was really cool.

VAUSE: OK. John (ph), thank you for that. Have we got time for one more e-mail...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.

VAUSE: We've got time for one more. Let's go, very quickly. Whoever wants to pick it up.

"The current situation with North Korea may be China's opportunity to finally enter the world stage as a major diplomatic power." Anyone want to pick that one up?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well...

MACKINNON: I can pick that one up having been based in China before.

VAUSE: Yes, quickly, Rebecca.

MACKINNON: Basically, China is in a very -- yes, China's situation is very much on the fence, because China is an ally of North Korea. It also is engaging the United States and South Korea. But China has not been willing, so far, to really pull the plug to say to North Korea if you don't ratchet down these tensions, if you don't drop your nuclear program, we are going to cut off aid.

Part of that reason is that China does not want to see North Korea collapse. It would have a terrible refugee situation on its border if that were to happen, so it's really walking a fine line.

VAUSE: OK, to all of you, thank you very much for our very insightful panel there, the input and insights there, Rebecca MacKinnon and Dana Bash and General Grange there giving us their expert opinions in the field.

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