Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Sunday
Interview With Joseph Cirincione
Aired January 05, 2003 - 16:14 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.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: U.S. officials will meet this week with diplomats from South Korea and Japan to look for ways to deal with North Korea's nuclear program.
To look more at this issue, we are joined by Joseph Cirincione. He's the author of "Deadly Arsenal: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction" and the director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Thank you for being with us, Joseph.
JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTL. PEACE: My pleasure.
COOPER: The threat from North Korea, is really -- I mean, it's more than just North Korea developing plutonium for their own reactors. There's also the potential of them developing plutonium to sell to rogue states.
CIRINCIONE: Yes. In some ways this is the greater danger. They have enough plutonium for one or two weapons now. We don't have any definite evidence that they've actually constructed those weapons.
But if they're allowed to get back into the plutonium production process, if they unfreeze their reactor, if they start extracting plutonium from the spent fuel that they have in storage, they could quickly get enough plutonium for six additional nuclear bombs and start pumping out enough for one, two, eventually 30 or 40 bombs per year.
They could be in the plutonium plutonium-selling business. And that's the greater threat. Who could they give this to you? We know they've sold missiles to other countries. Would they start selling plutonium?
COOPER: What are the U.S.'s options? I mean, I've heard over and over from many people that the military option, really there is no military option, that the loss of life that would result would be just too much.
CIRINCIONE: That's exactly right. Unlike in Iraq, there's agreement across the board that there is no military option here.
An attack on the North Korean reactor, for example, could ignite a Korean war that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of South Koreans. And then a long and lengthy conflict. There are really only three options. War, which we've just ruled out.
Negotiations, which Secretary Powell wanted to pursue when he came into office, but he was overruled by the hard-liners in the administration. They rejected that option.
That left him with the third option, which is isolation. Try to isolate the regime and force it to collapse. And that is still the option we're pursuing.
However, neither China nor South Korea, our two closet friends in South Korea an ally in the region, want that regime to collapse. They're looking to negotiate a soft landing.
So that leads us back, however difficult it may be for some to accept, to the negotiation option. That's what South Korea is hoping for. That's the plan they'll present to the White House tomorrow.
COOPER: But how does the U.S. negotiate with South Korea? I mean, even if they were willing to -- you know, the White House has been very clear in saying, we're not going to be blackmailed to come to the negotiating table by the threat of nuclear, you know, the nuclear proliferation.
How do you negotiate with a country where you're not even sure the ruler is rational?
CIRINCIONE: Well, actually, I think in this case we have a pretty good idea of what South Korea -- or North Korea's game is here. And I think they're trying, in this unfreezing of their process and opening up the reactors, threatening to extract the plutonium from the fuel rods, trying to increase their negotiating position to strike a better deal.
And this is the interesting point. Unlike Iraq, North Korea wants to deal. They want to get recognition from the United States.
And here's the good news here, is the deal is relatively cheap for the United States. They want a non-aggression pact. We're not exactly going to give them that, but we could give them something along those lines.
COOPER: Why is that so important to North Korea, this non- aggression pact?
CIRINCIONE: Well, they feel the U.S. has threatened them repeatedly with nuclear attack. We used to have over 700 nuclear weapons stationed in South Korea.
President Bush, the current president's father, withdrew most of those weapons, all those weapons, in 1991.
Still, they feel that, since they've been listed as the axis of evil, they've been targeted on the nuclear posturing view. We've said that we would target them with nuclear weapons. They feel that they some need assurance that the U.S. won't attack them. But more than that, they're looking for some economic assistance, and we could give them that at a relatively low cost. Much less, for example, than we're spending on the missile defense program every year.
We could literally buy the North Korean missile program, we'd just have to negotiate the price.
COOPER: So how would -- I mean, sort of nuts and bolts, how would the negotiation work? I mean, if the White House and the United States sticks to its position that we're not going to be blackmailed into coming to a table, how do you get people to a table then?
CIRINCIONE: At this point, we need a face-saving way out for both sides. And there's a couple of different interlocutors suggest themselves.
China, the United States is hoping that China would bring pressure on North Korea to freeze, again, its nuclear program. China is reluctant to do that.
But South Korea has now stepped in. They want to be the interlocutory. They are proposing a deal that they are bringing to Washington tomorrow or Tuesday. South Korea could be the broker that comes up with an arrangement that the United States could accept without appearing to back down.
COOPER: How much of this, though, South Korea's involvement, is driven by South Korean politics? I mean, South Korea's new president basically ran on a platform of, you know, rapprochement with the North.
CIRINCIONE: Yes. That's right. They -- Both China and South Korea don't want to see the North collapse. They're fearful of millions of immigrants rushing into both of their countries if that were to happen.
They believe that they can open up North Korea and negotiate what they call a soft landing over time, reform in that country, and eventually convincing its leaders to abandon the hard-line communist regime that they have.
There's risks in that strategy, but a lot less risks than either war or allowing the North Koreans to start producing plutonium. That's what you can't allow to happen.
So anything you can do to prevent that process, to stall that process, to buy that process is all to the good.
The South Koreans certainly have some domestic politics of their own to play. But again, it's their peninsula. They have the most to lose.
COOPER: All right. Joseph Cirincione, we appreciate you joining us. Thanks very much. CIRINCIONE: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.
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 5, 2003 - 16:14 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: U.S. officials will meet this week with diplomats from South Korea and Japan to look for ways to deal with North Korea's nuclear program.
To look more at this issue, we are joined by Joseph Cirincione. He's the author of "Deadly Arsenal: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction" and the director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Thank you for being with us, Joseph.
JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTL. PEACE: My pleasure.
COOPER: The threat from North Korea, is really -- I mean, it's more than just North Korea developing plutonium for their own reactors. There's also the potential of them developing plutonium to sell to rogue states.
CIRINCIONE: Yes. In some ways this is the greater danger. They have enough plutonium for one or two weapons now. We don't have any definite evidence that they've actually constructed those weapons.
But if they're allowed to get back into the plutonium production process, if they unfreeze their reactor, if they start extracting plutonium from the spent fuel that they have in storage, they could quickly get enough plutonium for six additional nuclear bombs and start pumping out enough for one, two, eventually 30 or 40 bombs per year.
They could be in the plutonium plutonium-selling business. And that's the greater threat. Who could they give this to you? We know they've sold missiles to other countries. Would they start selling plutonium?
COOPER: What are the U.S.'s options? I mean, I've heard over and over from many people that the military option, really there is no military option, that the loss of life that would result would be just too much.
CIRINCIONE: That's exactly right. Unlike in Iraq, there's agreement across the board that there is no military option here.
An attack on the North Korean reactor, for example, could ignite a Korean war that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of South Koreans. And then a long and lengthy conflict. There are really only three options. War, which we've just ruled out.
Negotiations, which Secretary Powell wanted to pursue when he came into office, but he was overruled by the hard-liners in the administration. They rejected that option.
That left him with the third option, which is isolation. Try to isolate the regime and force it to collapse. And that is still the option we're pursuing.
However, neither China nor South Korea, our two closet friends in South Korea an ally in the region, want that regime to collapse. They're looking to negotiate a soft landing.
So that leads us back, however difficult it may be for some to accept, to the negotiation option. That's what South Korea is hoping for. That's the plan they'll present to the White House tomorrow.
COOPER: But how does the U.S. negotiate with South Korea? I mean, even if they were willing to -- you know, the White House has been very clear in saying, we're not going to be blackmailed to come to the negotiating table by the threat of nuclear, you know, the nuclear proliferation.
How do you negotiate with a country where you're not even sure the ruler is rational?
CIRINCIONE: Well, actually, I think in this case we have a pretty good idea of what South Korea -- or North Korea's game is here. And I think they're trying, in this unfreezing of their process and opening up the reactors, threatening to extract the plutonium from the fuel rods, trying to increase their negotiating position to strike a better deal.
And this is the interesting point. Unlike Iraq, North Korea wants to deal. They want to get recognition from the United States.
And here's the good news here, is the deal is relatively cheap for the United States. They want a non-aggression pact. We're not exactly going to give them that, but we could give them something along those lines.
COOPER: Why is that so important to North Korea, this non- aggression pact?
CIRINCIONE: Well, they feel the U.S. has threatened them repeatedly with nuclear attack. We used to have over 700 nuclear weapons stationed in South Korea.
President Bush, the current president's father, withdrew most of those weapons, all those weapons, in 1991.
Still, they feel that, since they've been listed as the axis of evil, they've been targeted on the nuclear posturing view. We've said that we would target them with nuclear weapons. They feel that they some need assurance that the U.S. won't attack them. But more than that, they're looking for some economic assistance, and we could give them that at a relatively low cost. Much less, for example, than we're spending on the missile defense program every year.
We could literally buy the North Korean missile program, we'd just have to negotiate the price.
COOPER: So how would -- I mean, sort of nuts and bolts, how would the negotiation work? I mean, if the White House and the United States sticks to its position that we're not going to be blackmailed into coming to a table, how do you get people to a table then?
CIRINCIONE: At this point, we need a face-saving way out for both sides. And there's a couple of different interlocutors suggest themselves.
China, the United States is hoping that China would bring pressure on North Korea to freeze, again, its nuclear program. China is reluctant to do that.
But South Korea has now stepped in. They want to be the interlocutory. They are proposing a deal that they are bringing to Washington tomorrow or Tuesday. South Korea could be the broker that comes up with an arrangement that the United States could accept without appearing to back down.
COOPER: How much of this, though, South Korea's involvement, is driven by South Korean politics? I mean, South Korea's new president basically ran on a platform of, you know, rapprochement with the North.
CIRINCIONE: Yes. That's right. They -- Both China and South Korea don't want to see the North collapse. They're fearful of millions of immigrants rushing into both of their countries if that were to happen.
They believe that they can open up North Korea and negotiate what they call a soft landing over time, reform in that country, and eventually convincing its leaders to abandon the hard-line communist regime that they have.
There's risks in that strategy, but a lot less risks than either war or allowing the North Koreans to start producing plutonium. That's what you can't allow to happen.
So anything you can do to prevent that process, to stall that process, to buy that process is all to the good.
The South Koreans certainly have some domestic politics of their own to play. But again, it's their peninsula. They have the most to lose.
COOPER: All right. Joseph Cirincione, we appreciate you joining us. Thanks very much. CIRINCIONE: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
