Skip to main content

tv   Heritage Foundation Discussion on Negotiations with North Korea  CSPAN  November 30, 2018 4:10pm-5:43pm EST

4:10 pm
debates program. featuring historians edna green medford, douglas brinkley, and russell shortell, discussing what it means to be american. >> one nation indivisible, in a sense was was a kind of we are all together are we all? that is somehow elemental to what it means to be american. >> the american character of what it means to be american to be able to improvise. by that i mean when you look at george washington and the dark days of december 17 1777 at valley ford the ability of general washington to improvise to be a guerrilla fighter to live off the land, to be able to do what we need to do to get the job done. >> i think from the airy beginning not all groups were included including american, certainly minority groups were not, with certain religious groups were not. and women were not really considered citizens at least. that changes over time.
4:11 pm
over time more and more people are brought in to the american family. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. >> the heritage foundation hosted this discussion about human rights in north korea. analyst talked about how to handle the issue during nuclear disarmament negotiations. it's about 90 minutes. >> good morning everyone and welcome to the heritage foundation. i'm olivia enos, i covered human rights portfolio in the asian city center here at the heritage foundation and i'm really excited to host this program. for those of that don't know me, north korean human rights issues are actually the reason why i got into working on asia in the first place.
4:12 pm
i'm excited to host this event, especially with all these fantastic panelists we have here today. earlier this year i had the opportunity to travel to singapore during the trump cama summit and i was there to do media for heritage, specifically because heritage really wanted to highlight issues of human rights that we fear truly were potentially going to be left off the agenda in singapore. my thought was that if the trump administration is willing to call for complete verifiable irreversible dismantlement of north korea's nuclear program, why not call for complete verifiable irreversible dismantlement of north korea's political prison camps as well. that is my central contention at least and obviously the singapore summit came and went and human rights issues played little to no role in the negotiation process. pompeo claims the issues of religious freedom were raised, those are critical issues. but other than that we really have not heard anything that
4:13 pm
was raised during those discussions. this is really a missed opportunity on the trump administration's part because prior to the singapore summit you had of course a lot of issues raised surrounding ãb and concerns expressed about human rights abuses then and everyone remembers the state of the union address when g sean ho stood up and was highlighted for severe human rights abuses that north korea is continuing to carry out any even today. even had the remarkable meeting of the president with several north korean refugees all incredibly important symbolic commitments to advancing human rights issues and then of course congress earlier this year we authorized the north korean human rights act which was very momentous and definitely needed. but since the singapore summit it seems like human rights issues has been completely flipped off the negotiating table. they are not even on the table.
4:14 pm
with the second trump kim summit potentially on the horizon i wanted to highlight five key reasons why i believe human rights issues and in particular the political prison camp issues should be raised had the upcoming summit or even in negotiations that are happening behind closed doors. i outlined this in the paper that some of you may have picked up when you came in. the first contention is that the kim regime uses human rights issues to maintain its grip on power. it's very threat of having three generations of her family sent to a political prison camp or the potential to be brutally executed in the times square for mere possession of the bible. watching a south korean drama or having ãon the portrait of one of the dear leaders. i think the ability to maintain the grip on power is the region
4:15 pm
why ãcontinues to have the human rights abuses and carry out the way he does. beyond that if he didn't maybe north korean people would have an opportunity to actually speak out against the government and speaking out against the practices that are so egregious. second, i believe that raising concerns about human rights issues actually contradicts kim jong-il and kept propaganda about the united states. kim jong-il repeatedly tells his people that the u.s. is only interested in going to war and it serves primarily as an aggressor to north korea but raising human rights issues and not just raising them but using information efforts to get those messages into north korea have the ability to contradict that propaganda in a way that i think we can even measure how potentially beneficial that can be. the third reason is that north korea actually profits from its human rights abuses. we see it in 2012 alone north korea spent ãband an estimated $1.3 billion on its missile program. in that same year north korea requested only $111 million
4:16 pm
from the world food program. if north korea is able to spend that much on luxury goods, that much on its whistle program and weapons development, then it's able to actually feed its people. and is in fact profiting off those human rights practices. north korea profits uniquely from the prison camps. why do i say this? because forced labor in prison camps is free labor for the regime. beyond that, forced labor in the prison camps might be used expressly for the purpose of developing its various chemical, biological, and nuclear and missile programs there have been several reports over the years that have pointed to that. while reports are limited, stories have long emerged that the regime may be testing its chemical and biological weapons on prisoners among other populations including disabled children. this is egregious in and of itself but it's actually helping the regime to continue. it's weapons development. number five, kim jong un might
4:17 pm
be persuaded but it's actually inherited his interest to eliminate the prison camps in order to gain legitimacy in the international space. arguably the very reason why north korea developed its nuclear and missile programs is for its own legitimacy and to maintain its regime stability. that's why it's so important that u.s. negotiators clearly communicate that no leader who imprisons his own people and brutal concentration like camps can be viewed as stable or legitimate. we have to communicate that prior to the second trump kim summit and we need to continue that. the administration decision to leave human rights off the table in singapore was arguably a victory for kim jong-un because it meant that north korea set the terms for negotiations, something that ã ãwhether on the nuclear part or human rights front.the ultimate task should be for complete verifiable
4:18 pm
irreversible dismantlement of north korea ãbinitial steps could be taken that might be necessary as a precursor. and as i argued in my paper, requesting humanitarian assets for actors like the world food program or international committee of the red cross could be potentially a good first step. or another first step can be to call for the release of all women and children inside north korea who pose absolutely no security threat to the regime. a few weeks ago i had the pleasure of visiting the u.s. holocaust memorial museum, which is if you haven't visited it and i think it is a staple in washington. they exhibit i got to visit the last time was on americans and the role they played during the holocaust. it's a mixed bag, which is sort of a shaming moment for americans to watch what the response was like during the holocaust. and it's particular museum exhibit highlighted u.s. responses to crystal loft and
4:19 pm
reports of finance and trap demo concentration camps there. the amazing things was the number of newspaper reports that had been written and the number of individuals who did speak out and even the importance of a single government official, henry morgenthau, the lone jewish member of the cabinet during the holocaust, he spoke out and he convinced fdr to actually start the world refugee board which is the reason why so many individuals would've suffered during holocaust were able to find refuge and freedom here in the united states. it's powerful because it's a reminder that individual citizens and their actions matter. and how governments respond to atrocities is incredibly meaningful. the commission of inquiry report that was released in 2014 found that human rights abuses and north korea are without parallel in the
4:20 pm
contemporary world.that between 80,000 ã120,000 individuals and political prison camps today and i would say that's probably a conservative estimate. jan that, even for the conservative estimate over 400,000 individuals have already perished in these camps. this unique moment in time when we are in negotiations with north korea, can we truly afford to not raise human rights concerns? do we really have the option to not advocate for their rights and liberties of the north korean people? i would say we do not. it's now my pleasure to introduce to you our panelists, each one was selected for a very particular reason. joan because she covers both national security issues and human rights issues. which i think is rare in washington.dan because he ãb what a fabulous paper which i hope you are able to guide bonnie raitt and the national bureau for asian research arguing that the u.s.
4:21 pm
government should find more natural ways to integrate human rights and to go in negotiations with north korea and greg because, he is greg and he doesn't really need any introduction. he is arguably one of the foremost advocates for human rights in north korea here in washington. i wanted to give a little background on each of them. doctor tonk is senior fellow and ãbshe focuses on national security challenges facing the united states and east asia including north korea's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, the regime's domestic and foreign policy internal stability and inter-korean ties. prior to joining bookings she's held senior positions at the central intelligence agency in the office of the director of national intelligence. prior to her work and national security, doctor paek talked at hunter college in new york city and studied in south korea as a full scholar. from 2014 to 2016 paek served
4:22 pm
as the deputy national intelligence officer at the national intelligence council in the office of the director of national intelligence. in that role she led u.s. intelligence community production of strategic analysis on the korean peninsula and represented the intelligence community and white house policy meeting provided direct analytic support to the national security council and advised the senior staff on key developments and emerging issues. she graduated with a undergraduate degree from colgate university and her phd in u.s. history from columbia. now i'd like to introduce dan alma, dan is a close personal friend of mine and he is the director of national bureau for asian research washington dc office. dan leads ideas engagement with same at congress and the media and works closely with nvr research leaders and nvr executive team to develop and implement nonpartisan outreach strategies that integrate congressional needs and perspectives. dan previously worked on capitol hill where he managed a
4:23 pm
portfolio of schematic and regional issues related to foreign-policy international law and human rights on the tom lantos human rights commission and previously he served at the robert f kennedy human rights ã ãhe was on a strategic litigation team that brought pieces before international and regional bodies. he graduated from a jd with george washington university at the a.m. ãbis also attending the same georgetown program that i was in the masters of asian studies. finally, i will turn to greg, greg is the executive director of the committee in washington dc. ãbhe's a visiting professor at concord university of foreign studies in seoul as well as instructor and correlator of the korean peninsula and japan class at the u.s. department of state foreign institute. he is vice president and
4:24 pm
executive board the international counseling korean studies and prior to ãbhe worked with the korea economic institute in washington dc. he has a lot of other very important things but i'm going to move on so we can actually get to our discussion. thank you all for joining us today. i'm going to turn it over to joan. >> thank you. olivia wrote a fabulous paper that i know is outside and she gave you a preview of that in her talk here. i'm so grateful for olivia and heritage for hosting this event on human rights. i want to tell you about a tale of two presidential speeches. last year the president trump gave a speech at the un general assembly talking about north korea. this was at the height of tensions with north korea, this was after the icbm missile test launches and the nuclear tests and the war of words between kim and trump.
4:25 pm
in that u.s. generally assembly speech president trump talked about talked about everything that north korea has done wrong and the things that international norms that north korea has violated.he talked about nuclear and ballistic missiles of course, but he also talked about the murder of his half-brother in malaysia using chemical and biological weapons.he talked about north korea's proliferation, past proliferation. he talked about the japanese abductions, the abductions of the japanese that north korea did conducted in the past. he also talked about human rights. and about the detention and eventual death of warm year lat at the un general assembly
4:26 pm
speech at 2018 a month ago. president trump said missiles and rockets are no longer flying in every direction. nuclear testing has stopped and remains of our fallen heroes are being returned to layout rest in american soil. then he went on to think president moon for facilitating the composition, the diplomacy with kim jong un and this is in addition to what i feel gratuitous complements to kim jong un for engaging in diplomacy. in that same speech president trump has applauded the withdrawal of the united states and the human rights council. and that the u.s. had withdrawn support for the international criminal court. as of two. affect we are not going to raise the human rights issue with kim jong-un or north korea and anymore. it may be true for some countries and some national
4:27 pm
security priorities to separate human rights issues from the national security issues, the hard issues. there is a sense in the national security community that somehow human rights can wait. and that it's a soft issue that can be taken care of at some later date, at some later time after the thornier issues in north korea case of its ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons program have been resolved.human rights can wait. i would argue that that's not the case in north korea. in my perspective, human rights violations and north korea's pursuit of its weapons of mass destruction are two pillars that undergird the existing regime as it is. it is desire to cement its nuclear weapon status. these two pillars are mutually reinforcing. as olivia and others have
4:28 pm
pointed out, human rights violations pay for the weapons program. the hundred thousand or so overseas laborers, the hundred or so thousand laborers in the camps. the corruption of the elite, as well as the working classes. and its proliferation and its diversion of resources to the nuclear missiles and delete lifestyles. human rights violations are embedded in the ideological infrastructure to crush dissent. from the neighborhood watches all the way up to the national level and you could argue on the international stage in which north korea uses violence to quiet dissent. i think the killing of his half-brother in malaysia is a key example of how the reach of north korea's violations reach beyond its geographical boundaries. third, human rights violations
4:29 pm
or justifications for the nuclear weapons program. because of the hostile outside world, the regime has for decades has said it requires absolute loyalty to the kim family. remember kim jong-un said that the nuclear button is on his desk and his desk only. because of the hostile outside world become a because of hostile u.s. policies, hostile sanctions, it's only kim jong-un who spans between north korea's survival and or prosperity ãbor destruction. so the human rights violations are required from kim's perspective to ensure that his supremacy in this monolithic system as well as to in effect lay the path or smooth the path for additional generations of the kim family.
4:30 pm
finally, i would argue that one of the reasons because human rights and weapons of mass destruction are so integrated into north korea's way of doing things and its approach, to really believe that kim is sincere and we should have faith and confidence in his strategic pivot in the way that president trump and president moon have south korea have been trying to argue, any effort on kim's addressing the human rights violations would have been a really strong signpost that kim was serious. in the absence of addressing human rights or the fact that it's not even on the table on the agenda for negotiations and diplomacy with kim it would be to only look at one pillar of what makes the north korean regime strong and its defiance
4:31 pm
of the international community and the norms. any of kim's efforts to address any of these issues would have been a signpost that he was in fact serious about dismantling its nuclear weapons program. i will end there and i look forward to my colleagues comments as well as your questions. >> olivia, thanks so much for inviting me in this timely discussion. you and i have discussed this in a number of chats i appreciate the opportunity now to put these into the public sphere and listen to what you have to say. all we are in nonprofit think tank headquartered in theology with the policy shop here in dc. we work across the spectrum of issues on political and security issues to trade economic energy issues, working with scholars both in the u.s. and asia. well my comments here today are
4:32 pm
my own, and don't reflect those of nvr they do reflect the belief that human rights are not silo come across many issues we are discussing today. let me just build off of olivia's and joan's excellent remarks. maybe i'll highlight three main buckets of ideas. the title of today's event is thinking strategically about human rights and negotiations with north korea. the first question to me is what do human rights have to do with our current nuclear negotiations? i would argue three points, number one, human rights is a powerful tool of suasion against north korea. in other words, north korea is particularly sensitive to and response to pressure against its human rights record. for many years folks have argued that in fact that's the
4:33 pm
argument against raising human rights issues, it's too sensitive. if you raise human rights issues from north korea they will walk away from the table. i think history has shown that when the u.s. and international community are stalwart in raising these issues, north korea has shown its willingness to deal. in the case in point is the example that olivia raised with the un commissioner of inquiry report. the un commission of inquiry was created by the human rights council, charged to identify whether or not crimes against humanity will being committed inside north korea they found they had. the un general assembly then took these recommendations and filed to the un security council in order to book for the recommendation of kim jong-un at the time to the international criminal court. from that mounted international pressure we saw a couple of firsts. for the first time north korea's center foreign minister, the first time and i think 15 years, center foreign minister to the un general assembly to plead against this indictment. for the first time ever north korea open its doors or at least invited the un repertoire
4:34 pm
on north korean human rights to visit. third, for the first time ever, north korea actually accepted some of the recommendations to its human rights record of the universal periodic review. which is essentially a process where all un members, and have their human rights embedded and commented on. they accepted some recommendations. though implementation still remains in question. all of this to say contrary to the views in the past, when the united states and the international community stand on these issues and show it's important and they're willing to put keith behind this that north korea has shown its willing to work on this. opening its doors to a special repertoire, sending a foreign minister, excepting recommendations on paper, those are not game changing. that said, from north korea those are giant leaps. those are things we've never seen before. if were able to maintain that level of pressure and focus we can see what the next steps might be. point number two, human rights is also a indicator of good
4:35 pm
will and negotiations. the example here are the three americans that were released, prior to trump and kim meeting at the singapore summit. prior to release the white house signaled that leasing these three americans would be a sign of goodwill toward negotiations. these americans of course were detained ãbcharged and detained on the furious charges ãbthey were walk through eventually a show trial and detained. we north korea did release them and gave capital to president trump to then announce that this was indeed a domestic victory and help aid in the process of making the argument that i should in fact meet with kim. other example from the summit is the release of the remains of prisoners of war. prisoners of war. again, that might not be seen as a human rights issue but
4:36 pm
under international humanitarian law family members have a right to access the remains of their family members. again, president trump raised this in person it was reported with kim directly. he said this was something that people have been pressuring me on, so i'm raising it to you. and kim apparently accepted immediately. again, this doesn't change the structure of human rights situation inside north korea but it's evidence that north korea would there's at least low cost and something the u.s. wants that is willing to trade some human rights bargaining chips as a measure of goodwill. finally, the last one is rights advancing human rights can contribute to our own national security interests.i will raise two examples. one is the labor camp issued that both olivia and ãbthe
4:37 pm
money gained is an important source to foreign currency that they gain overseas. to could contribute to the nuclear weapons program. i will throw a number of therapy can hang with me i will show why it's relevant. if you take a look at the numbers between how much money north korean labor camps raise compared to how much money it's reported that that the north korea nuclear programs is. here it is. according to a 2015 un report, it was estimated that 50,000 north koreans are working overseas and earns kim jong-un apparently $1.2 billion to $2.3 billion per year. compare that to your $1.2 billion to $2.3 billion to figures that estimate based on south korean government's analysis of north korea's nuclear programming that spending stands between $1.1 billion to $3.2 billion overall. i'm not a great mathematician but i please take the diagram and overlay them against each other i see a lot of overlap.
4:38 pm
one of the positions that the trump administrations could take is that if you scale down or eliminate these labor camps and take meaningful steps on denuclearization, will open up trade and aid in sentience to make up for the can be one way of linking human rights and security negotiations together. one other example, refugees, north korean refugees across from the north korean final border they usually cross into third-party country before if they're lucky they make it to a safe haven in south korea, the u.s., sometimes uk. this is primarily seen as a human rights issues because refugees are affected under refugee law, and should be allowed safe traverse without being interrupted. but it's also international security interest for this to happen, north korea is an isolated closed off place for targeting information. these refugees have on the fact
4:39 pm
experience and often times when it comes to their debriefed by national intelligence services both in south korea and the u.s. the higher up you go and you got somebody like ãbyou got people closer in access to the decision-making. you got better intel. saving north korean refugees is it just good for human rights it's also national security interest. a couple things that i didn't mention you may notice, are related to the most egregious violations in north korea. those are related to the massive political prison camps, arbitrary executions, detentions, firing squads, and north korea's use of their resources that don't benefit the overall i would target that both denuclearization and closing prison camps will happen overnight. that said, it's important to put the issue on the agenda to
4:40 pm
lead daylight and make incremental steps to improve human rights in a small way and serve national security interests. i will stop there. >> thank you very much for the invitation. i'm delighted to be here with friends. i would like to also say that the committee for human rights and all represented by colonel maxwell one of our board members, here the audience today, i should begin by saying that i'm not here to bash, criticize president mood and relationship to his approach to north korean human rights policy. we all understand there are good reasons why he won a landslide in the election last year.there are negative side effects of the hunger miracle that south korea is dealing with and. president moves approach to north korea as we all understand has to do with his drive to make progress as
4:41 pm
quickly as possible and in this process it seems that human rights has been left behind. hope is not lost. i do hope that president moons advisors understand that it is not too late to integrate human rights concerns in south korea's approach and wrappers with north korea. there are two aspects on why to address today. over the past years especially since the february 2014 unc i report of course prior to that as well, there has been action by advocacy groups and action when driven that what i would describe as an informal correlation of like-minded states.the united states, the european union, the republic of korea. japan and others and new
4:42 pm
zealand and so on and so forth. the two are mutually reinforcing and we would not have a north korean human rights movement if it weren't for north korea escapees who have been leaving the country, especially since the days of the great famine, the days of the ã^ there are currently 31,000 of them in south korea. wherever they might be in south korea, in the united states, in canada, in germany, in the uk, they need protection. they need assistance. and their voices must be heard. their voices must not be muffled. we speak with a lot of human rights activists, especially in south korea and they are indeed expressing very serious concerns. the funding has been drastically reduced. as many of you know the culture
4:43 pm
of charity in south korea is very different from the united states. it is very difficult for ngos, especially human rights ngos and even more so for north korean human rights ngos to depend on individual donations, corporate donations, it is unavoidable, they have to depend on government funding that government funding has been drastically reduced. pursuant to the north korean human rights act finally passed in south korea after more than 10 years, and north korean human rights foundation was established that foundation has been dismantled. our friends activists in south korea, many of them north korean escapees are telling us that regrettably south korean law enforcement sensors the content they send into north
4:44 pm
korea. of course there are no more balloon launches and pursuant to the military agreement and existence of that no-fly zone there will be no more balloon, no more drones, one of the few vehicles left his plastic bottles that are filled with rice, usb is inserted into the bottles and thrown into the sea, the current takes them up north. there been instances when south korean cops showed up and asked to see the us pews, check the content and content critical of not okay. anything about the assassination of kim jong-un ã ãnot okay. religious content still okay. k-pop content still okay. a couple weeks ago colonel maxwell roberta and i spoke together with the north korean
4:45 pm
escapee who appeared at the state of union address and none other than the hero. both of them were complaining that there are no more public appearances, they are no longer invited to speak in south korea. so indeed in that regard there are serious concerns. again, what it takes is to protect, support, and give a voice to these escapees. certainly there is another aspect and that is un action. in that regard, i mentioned that informal coalition of like-minded states, we have seen un general assembly resolutions on north korean human rights for 14 years now. in particular, since the february 2014 unc oi reports, every year, every spring, we've
4:46 pm
seen strong un human rights council resolution and in the fall and the third committee of the general assembly we have seen strong human rights resolutions, dpr k human rights resolutions, all of these concluding paragraphs most importantly on number one, crimes against humanity, number two accountability. of course. in previous resolutions the icc was mentioned, even if the icc is not mentioned, it is extraordinarily important that these two topics, these two issues crimes against humanity and accountability be included in any new resolution. anything short of that would be a calamity for the north korean human rights movement. moreover, since december 2014 north korean human rights has been placed on the agenda of the un security council as we all recall it takes 9/15 votes
4:47 pm
of permanent and nonpermanent members to place an item on the agenda of the council. that has happened every december since 2014, it will be very important to see once again north korean human rights including, placed on the agenda of the security council this year as well in 2018. two of my colleagues in the audience today were with me in new york city last week we had a conference on the 24th. a very successful conference. meant to celebrate the upcoming 70th anniversary of the un universal declaration of human rights, that's december 10, and against the background of the celebration we also addressed human rights we had two witnesses, one of them a former political prisoner from account number 15 in north korea. the other one a former worker officially dispatched overseas.
4:48 pm
and i cannot talk too much about it, i would probably have to consult the board and legal counsel before come up with more details but we were under extraordinary pressure, never seen before prior to a human rights event.the event was canceled and then we had to bring it back from the dead. there was pressure on multiple levels, it is not only the north korean human rights movement that's under pressure, one sees that even events at the un are faced with increasing pressure, the magnitude that quite frankly we hadn't seen before. of course it is not, it could be encouraging when one hears the south korean foreign minister, foreign minister ãb say that north korean human rights is a global issue. this could mean two things. number one we are not going to address north korean human
4:49 pm
rights and bilateral negotiations. number two, we will address north korean human rights within the multilateral context at the un. and i do hope that the second point remains valid in the coming weeks and months, especially the coming weeks. it will be very difficult for significant action at the un to happen without the active involvement of all of those key factors that i mentioned. even if only one of them leaves and decides not to participate actively in the effort in the un. it will become extraordinarily difficult to press ahead with action addressing north korean human rights. i would like to reinforce the point that dan and chong and olivia made that the dpr k
4:50 pm
regime does care about north korean human rights, as a matter of fact, last week the dpr k permanent mission to the united nations issued statements harshly criticizing the government of japan and the government of australia for their support of the general assembly resolution addressing north korean human rights. again, i am in full agreement with my colleagues that north korean human rights can be integrated in the inter-korean peace and reconciliation process. north korean human rights can also be integrated within the denuclearization talks and they have been presidents of multilateral and bilateral negotiations with the soviet union during the days of the cold war when human rights was part of the process, whether this was helsinki process or
4:51 pm
president reagan and the secretary of state shoots caring so much about the refuse issue and the soviet union, and the soviet union is getting serious about this particular issue was indeed interpreted as indication that there was credibility on the other front as well on the nuclear front. again, despite rather harsh circumstances, i will continue to be cautiously optimistic and hope that the government of south korea, president moons advisors, will understand the importance that integrating human rights in their approach to north korea. they can be no economic development in the future. there can be no real erection between the peoples of the two koreas without paying attention to the north korean human rights issue.
4:52 pm
thank you for listening, i look forward to q and a. >> thank you guys for all of your incredibly insightful remarks. as the moderator i'm going to ask a couple of questions and then i will open it up to the audience. one of the reasons why i coordinated the program was really because i did want to draw the linkage between the national security issues and the human rights issues. hopefully you did get that, i think throughout everyone's remarks really but i think one of the frustrating things looking at u.s. government efforts the way the state department is event set up. it unnaturally divides some of the human rights issues from the security issues. i think you see this in so many ways and some of it is a reflection of the reality that as humans we can only master so much information at once and
4:53 pm
it's hard to get all of that together but i think it's going to be really important in the months ahead that we do integrate those issues together and in future negotiations with north korea. my first question is, in the next couple months obviously you have opportunities at the un to raise these issues, what would you say are some key milestones you would look for in integrating the human rights and national security issues together especially in negotiations with north korea? >> key milestones? i think secretary of state pompeo said that when he met with kim jong-un he raised the issue of the japanese abductions. who knows how that was raised it could have been tacked on at the end of, i have to say it so i'm going to say it, but i think the narrative now is it progress. where north korea is making progress.
4:54 pm
on the singapore summit and the various agreements with south korea. i think the introductory right now is still of a notion that there is progress on those issues but with human rights and other issues being sidelined. i think on milestones, i'm not sure we are going to see issues like this. i think of anything japan still is raising the human rights issue as greg has pointed out as have australia and that's where the pressure still has to be coming from outside almost think. i would also highlight the fact that maximum pressure included senatorial sections on things like coal and fisheries and textiles which seem pretty benign on the surface but they
4:55 pm
require forced labor, labor from the prison camps and those things are fungible profits that can be diverted and have been diverted to regime priorities on the nuclear weapons program. we will see how much of that maximum pressure on those sectoral sanctions and implementing those sanctions are going to be implemented and strengthened over the next few months. i would look at those couple of things what greg has mentioned about how the like-minded countries and groups are talking about human rights and secondly how we continue to implement what remains of maximum pressure. >> let me throw three more ideas out there. >> one would be speaking of the state department nominating confirming special on human
4:56 pm
rights for north korea that position has been vacant. the past two years now. there's a question about whether it's better to have an individual specializing north korean rights as opposed to enveloping that into the broader north korean special representatives portfolio. while the question remains, it's better to have an ongoing human rights then nothing at all. number two is i think greg had mentioned he could expand on this. looking out for the un general assembly resolution to see what they do include human rights as a baseline but also criminal accountability crimes against humanity. third, building off what ãsaid about the potential discussions of japanese ãbprime minister abe has reached out for a summit with kim jong-un to see if that comes up during that negotiable summit and then to see how far prime minister abe gets on those discussions. the other part is president trump has signaled he is open
4:57 pm
to a second summit with kim jong-un i think it would be very important to see what they whether human rights based on that agenda. >> a course of the un generally assembly resolution and third committee including paragraphs on crimes against humanity and the call ability. the issue of north korean human rights being placed on the agenda of the security council then indeed the appointment of a special ãfor north korean human rights is very difficult for the current special envoy to cover those duties as well. he would be in a very difficult position, plus, there are times when somebody really needs to deal with this issue full-time and one example is that of the visit he raised a lot of great points there. this is an opportunity to approach the vatican to raise human rights concerns, to play
4:58 pm
a role, if it does happen indeed and by the way you think that good things have come out of papal visits over the years but indeed there are many caveats that olivia raises in her paper this would be a particular opportunity for a special envoy to engage in basically participate in relevant north korea human rights policy. there's another issue i would like to raise and that is the issue of the human rights upfront approach. last week human rights groups were having a meeting at the state department while the special envoy was meeting with humanitarian they had serious concerns pertaining to the funding and we understand that. i would like to see human
4:59 pm
rights groups and humanitarian agencies coming closer together and perhaps humanitarian agencies and especially un agencies involved on the ground in north korea. and there under tremendous pressure it comes down to funding they do great work. but the application of the human rights upfront approach will be very important. to put it very simply, it is an untenable position to run water and sanitation project next to a political prison camp. many of the humanitarian operations have taken place in the immediate vicinity of detention facilities and even unlawful detention facilities in the dpr k. if the world health organization has a program titled health in prisons, why not seek access to some of north korea's detention facilities, why not try to apply the stop a program to north korea's detention facilities as order to do that we need experts who have the time to basically address this full-time, these
5:00 pm
are all very important issues. the coming weeks in particular between now and the end of the year the coming weeks will be absolutely critical for the fate of the north korean human rights movement for the fate of action at the un as well. >> now i'd like to open it up to the audience. please make sure that this is a question. let's start with the gentleman at the back. >> thank you so much this is such a nuanced and interesting issue politically and i understand the sensitivities, greg, my question i think is probably for you and i guess, can you clarify is that your argument that the moon administration actually has a policy of trying to silence the defectors at the moment? if the answer is yes, is it
5:01 pm
because of a concern that their voices will stir up political opposition inside south korea to push his overall push for reconciliation or more of a concern that not silencing these people will upset kim jong-un and make him less willing to keep talking? >> i wouldn't go as far as stating that the moon administration has a policy to suppress north korean activists and north korean human rights groups. what we see in south korea is that when conservative administrations are in power, humanitarian assistance groups are under more pressure one progressive administrations are in power, human rights groups are under more pressure. there seems to be more pressure now then we saw on the previous progressive administrations to give you an example the most senior defector ever
5:02 pm
established the defector organization in the late 1990s that organization was quietly funded by the south korean government even under the administrations of progressive presidents kim and xiang funding was cut generally first of this year. i would go as far as saying that this is a highly targeted policy of suppression, but certainly this is part of an effort to appease kim jong-un and the kim regime. we've seen reports of them ministry of indication banning north korean defector reporter from participating in an event involving north korean officials. of course the administer of unification of south korea had to apologize for this mishap. perhaps people get overzealous in the process there is an overwhelming mood that seems to favor somehow appeasement of
5:03 pm
the north korean regime and this is pre-much the result of that. certainly the end result is that these groups and individuals do not seem to enjoy the support that they had enjoyed under previous administrations, not only conservative administrations progressive administrations as well. >> my name is peter humphrey i'm intelligence analyst and former diplomat, i note that uranium mining is still going on. you think that's the first thing that would be stopped. it's also possible to use infrared to see what factories are still going on. thus i think we are being sold a bill of goods here, and immense bill of goods. i like to hear everyone, including you guys, talk about more about what our plan b is.
5:04 pm
when you add up the number of people who have died in the prison camps under the kim regime you get about a million people according to victor cha that's five or six atomic bombs worth of human bodies. why hasn't anybody pointed that out to the last administration or this administration? why do we not make it very clear that the most deadly weapon of mass destruction of north korea is the prison camps and if we could get a ban on the prison camps rather than nuclear weapons that would be a very good deal because the nuclear weapons can be used. what is going on? >> i think that just because they are not testing, the progress has been measured by
5:05 pm
the fact that there hasn't been any ballistic missile testing or nuclear tests in the past year. i think that that from 1998 to 2006 is any guide when there is no nuclear testing or ballistic missile launchers that was one they use the quiet time to covertly develop advanced capabilities. ... ... >> into u.s. approach to north korea, but it's -- but depending on the year, depending on the season, it waxes and wanes. and the sequence of when to bring up human rights also is, you know, is something that's negotiable and flexible.
5:06 pm
but i think, i think the mood of diplomacy and the fear of offending kim and smashing the, you know, this very fragile mood of engagement, i think it's misguided. kim jong un is not a bubble boy who is going to die if we talk about human rights or raise those issues. [laughter] and i think when we -- i think it's a specious argument to say that we have to continue to talk about engagement and continue with diplomacy. yes, of course we should. but the same people who advocate not talking about human rights and really pressing kim are also talking about testing kim. and when you're testing somebody, youen want to make sure that -- you want to make sure that it's a real test and that you're not grading on a curve. and so i think human rights should be part of this discussion because to be really
5:07 pm
able to test somebody's intentions, their good intentions, then you're going to have to make it a little more difficult than showing up to the olympics and rolling out the red carpet for minor concessions that we don't really question. >> morning, dave maxwell, foundation for defense of democracies. great presentations from everyone. two takeaways, talking points that i think all four have certain sized. human rights is a national security issue. and you can't have maximum pressure if you don't include human rights. i think we should all take that away. i'd like to look a little farther in the future and ask -- i know olivia's worked on this and maybe others have. you know, south korea not focusing on human rights, and i'd like to say we can't want
5:08 pm
human rights more than south korea. that's kind of a flippant remark, but, you know, we do have a responsibility as well. when you look towards unification, if you can speculate, you know, that if south korea doesn't focus on unification -- or on human rights, when unification occurs, what do you think the impact will be on the korean people living in the north? if no one has really tried to protect their human rights? do you think that will have an impact? and i know that's speculation, but i think it's worth, worth thinking about. >> yeah, definitely. so for many years now i've been wanting to write a paper that specifically talks about both humanitarian and human rights engagement and especially contingency planning which is a very sensitive subject both in south korea and then even here in the u.s. to some exe tempt. extent. and i have been amazed in conversations with various folks that repeatly i've been told that there isn't any major plan on humanitarian issues and on human rights engagement when it
5:09 pm
comes to these issues. and that really shocks me in large part because i think that there, i mean, you already have roughly 30,000 north korean refugees in south korea today. they form a test case at least for how assimilation in the process is going and also a means by which we can have lessons learned. what works, what doesn't work, etc. and i think it's so important to be planning for that even in the midst of, you know, what seems like increasingly warming relations with north korea. i also wanted to pick up on your second point about maximum pressure and its connection to human rights issues. because something that is often overwith looked is that in the -- overlooked is that in the north korean enpolicy enhancement act, they have tied together the sanctions that are specifically issued under those authorities to human rights issues. so if the administration, for example, ever says, well, we can lift all of the sanctions as soon as north korea's
5:10 pm
denuclearized, that's actually factually false. because in the north korean sanctions and policy enhancement act, you're not allowed to lift sanctions on north korea unless the political prison camps are closed. so it doesn't make sense in negotiations to not have the human rights issues tied together with the nuclear issue when already our legislation is sort of pushing us in that direction as is. so that's just one other thing to note. would anyone else like to take a -- >> sure. thinking of the trailer that the president, president trump, showed kim jong un during the summit meeting. i think, i still believe it was made by the south koreans. it's very good. they have a trailer for everything in south korea. they have a trailer for going to the restroom. [laughter] but that said, yeah, it is a very interesting way of presenting this vision of a rapidly developing north korea. that would be impossible without progress on human rights.
5:11 pm
there is no private property in north korea. human rights, labor rights are not on -- not observed. in order to join the world bank, which is a precondition for joining the adb as well, of course north korea would have to improve its human rights record. it'll have to reduce its military expenditure, it'll have to collect national statistical data. but first and foremost, they would have to get very serious about their human rights record. so development devoid of human rights is utterly impossible. the two issues cannot be divorced. kim jong un u.s. understand that -- must understand that, of course, denuclearization is an absolute must, no doubt about that. it's just a first, very important steppingstone. but eventually, if true development is what north korea is after, they will need comprehensive economic, social
5:12 pm
and political reform. human rights is a very important part of that. >> so on the unification issue, i think the question jumping off of what greg has said in his first comments, what kind of korea do you want to see? do you want to see a korea, a unified korea where policies or groups that are critical of government policies are silenced? do you want to see a unified korea where you're so afraid of offending your leader because he's so sensitive to criticism? and so i think when you talk about, talk about a unified korea, you have to talk about what your vision of that korea is. or are we going to follow the south korea, this miracle on the -- [inaudible] that's about the economy, but it's also about following the candlelight protests, you know,
5:13 pm
is this going -- it's about an awakening of the political consciousness and the freedoms of people. so i think, i think the course that we're on now seems to suggest that kim is too sensitive and that we can't offend him. and so i think when you talk about, dave, you know, on unification we have to really think about what that vision is. >> so in answer to that unification question, which is a great question, i would say probably the best person to speak on that issue would be a current north korean defector living in south korea. this is anecdotal, perhaps, but speaking with one of my north korean friends about this question, i asked her at the time you were in north korea -- and this was maybe early '90s, before she left, and this is when north korea still believed that south korea was doing economically worse with, that they were still, you know, they were a puppet regime under and that while the government was
5:14 pm
corrupt, the korean people themselves were still good and naive and that they had this fervor to be unified. they asked her at that point when you knew that south korea was or poorer than you, did you want unification? yes, of course. we recognized that south korea was in a worse position, but we realize that they're our brothers and sisters and, ultimately, we need to be one country. so to me, there's a stark contrast between how north koreans, despite how bad they're doing and despite their view of how sea's doing, still wants unification compared to the current context where, for a number of reasons, they don't want unification. because of the economic costs, because of the cost of restructuring everything. perhaps the other comparative point i'd raise is if this isn't raised well, if this isn't done well, we may see in a future unified korea what the current south korean political context looks like which is divided on two extreme lines, and it's
5:15 pm
ultimately which side were you on, were you with the conservatives? were you with with the ones that were, okay, sure, they helped us, but they also oppressed the democracy movement. and really everything you're saying about they is to suppress our work. or are you on the side of democracy and liberalization, and did you fight against the oppressors. i think if this isn't handled well, there's not more of a confluence of sharing views, we may see a similar type if not more extreme divide in the future. >> i think i saw somebody back there. >> hi, i'm an intern here at heritage. i wanted to ask the panel about the bizarre friendship between dennis rodman and kim jong un. does the panel think he actually encouraged kim jong un to want to talk? because he's also friends with
5:16 pm
donald trump. and is he going to be tapped in negotiations at all? [laughter] >> yeah. i don't think he'll play any role in negotiations. and i think it's unlikely that he was the main leader in getting kim jong un to come to the table. i would give a lot of credit to president moon jae-in for getting north korea to come to the negotiating table. a lot of that happened around the time of the olympics, and i would say that was the critical juncture, turning point in terms of getting negotiations started and also, frankly, the momentum that has sort of kept negotiations going. >> i also think that dennis rodman, the friendship between the two, had a lot to do with kim jong un's comfort level at the time. he hadn't met with the president of mongolia who had visited north korea, he hadn't met with eric schmidt who visited with his daughter. he was chairman of google at the
5:17 pm
time. now, this year, in 2018, the situation has drastically changed. of course, in light of the multiple summit meetings that have happened this year with our own president, with president moon and with, with the chinese leader, with xi jinping. so perhaps a couple of years ago senior defectors were telling us that there might be an opportunity to see some light between kim jong un and his senior leadership. i think that his comfort level has increased dramatically this year, and i also think that his legitimacy in the eyes of his own senior leadership has also been enhanced. so perhaps dennis rodman played a great role as an entertainer at the time, but that's about it. no further role, i agree. >> okay. >> john arnold. i'd like to go to more solid sports. this past winter olympics the
5:18 pm
south korean team became a blended team with a couple players coming in from the north, and they were coached by an american coach, sarah murray, out of minnesota. going forward, there's con policemen police station -- contemplation between south korea and north korea forming a combined bid for an olympic games. so in the big chess match, where does solid sports, the olympic movement fit in all of this? especially since it is -- the olympic coach talked so much about human rights and the sense of fair play? >> i'll just go really quick. i, so earlier this year when north korea was allowed to participate in the olympics, i actually wrote a piece saying why north korea shouldn't have even been allowed to participate in the olympics. i think the olympics in many ways were a pretty significant almost like negotiating gift to
5:19 pm
north korea that i think really they did not merit at all for all of the human rights reasons that we've been talking abouted abouted -- about today, but also because they have their nuclear weapons and their missile programs. either they haven't been testing as much recently, i mean, the fact that they still exist, to me, means that they probably finish as a rogue actor -- shouldn't have even been allowed to participate in this year's olympics. i think it would be really unwise for south korea, north korea to submit a bid. it grants legitimacy to a regime that does merit that type of international recognition. >> certainly. the optimist might also say that perhaps by throwing in a joint bid, this might create incentives finish -- as difficult as that might be for the north korean regime to be to address those civil rights issues. olivia, i'm in full agreement.
5:20 pm
south korean athletes trained prior to the olympics at the ski resort in north korea. that ski resort was built with forced labor. north korean soldiers built it according to the dprk, forced labor, children were engaged in public mobilization campaigns, in snow removal and other operations at this ski resort. that has absolutely nothing to do with the olympic spirit. actually, that runs counter to the olympic spirit. of course, those south korean athletes were not allowed to wear their south korean flag shoulder patches. as we recall, only one of the members of the south korean delegation that traveled to pyongyang for the summit meeting wore a south korean flag lapel pin, and that was none other than the vice chair of the group. so there are very serious human rights concerns. human rights was clearly sacrificed for the sake of the
5:21 pm
pyeongchang olympics. a lot of compromises were made. one example, kim ill jong, the leader's sister, is on a list of sanctioned individuals issued by our own treasury department and state department for a simple reason. she's responsible for punishing those seeking to access information from the outside world. north korean people have been killed, sent to reeducation camps and to political prison camps. an exemption was granted. i've never been able to find out -- the second time she stepped on south korean soil, when she came over for the summit meeting in april, it's not very clear whether this was a second exemption, whether this was an extension of the first exemption or whether this is somewhere in a gray zone, and the exemption is indefinite.
5:22 pm
but, certainly, if there's talk of a joint olympic bid, president moon's advisers must understand that human rights must be part of the equation. >> so i think the thing about the olympics and the, you know, greg, you talk about the sanctions exemptions, what value are these sanctions if you can just look aside, look away when the olympics are on? or when there's a political need? so i think to lumbar picks undercut finish the olympics in a lot of ways understood cut the -- undercut the sanctions regime. in talking about the olympics, guess who's having the next olympics? it's tokyo. tokyo's been a stalwart opponent of, you know, engaging with north korea without any real concession -- significant concessions from pyongyang. i would be highly, i'm highly doubtful that tokyo would roll out the red carpet for north
5:23 pm
korean advance team. remember when the head of the band, right? went to go look at some of the venues in south korea for their performances, she was the star of the show. i think tokyo is unlikely to give that kind of leeway to north korean advance teams or to athletes. even if south korea and north korea were to have a combined olympics team. and i'll also point out that, you know, one of -- i would suspect that one of the reasons that president moon was so intent on having some rapprochement with north korea in january was because they had a hard time selling tickets. i think that's a leverage that pyongyang can use against tokyo. you know, north korea is not a fan of prime minister abe, is not a fan of japan continuing
5:24 pm
to, you know, poke on the ab suctions issue or -- abductions issue or continuing on to expose north korea's ship-to-ship transfers in violations of the sanctions regime. so i would fully anticipate north korea using all of their tools of coercion including cyber to cast tout on the safety of the tokyo olympics. in an effort to use that as leverage against prime minister abe and to use that as a way to punish abe and tokyo if it came to that. and so, you know, i think that's something, from my perspective, that's something to watch for in terms of whether north korea's sincere, but also how much pyongyang with can use it to see how much they can test the u.s./japan relationship, the japan/south korea relationship and the trilateral relationship. >> thank you.
5:25 pm
so one, so one thought. it is ironic because the olympics represent western liberal values, a rules-based order, merit-based system. non-liberal countries participate, there's a stark contrast. i think we're, at least in this previous olympics where it was most stark perhaps is where north korean members were invited to participate in the south korean team. of course, the south korean team had legitimately made their way to participate. but there was, you know, discussion and at least for the women's hockey team they brought north korean players over into their team. there's a great debate in south korea about whether this was right, whether this makes the team better, whether it's okay -- essentially, these players have played all their lives for their chance to win a seat on the olympic team, and if you set a number of seats aside for the other team, whether that's in the spirit of fairness and cooperation. the one other point i would make
5:26 pm
is, you know, i think for north korea using the olympics in order to enhance the identity part of the korean peninsula was important for them because once -- despite all the criticism against them, once you get a north and south korea team coming together on a combined korean flag ask you see them celebrating and talking to each other and playing together, that drives up enormous fervor within, certainly, south korea to imagine what the unified peninsula might look like. and you sort of smooth away all the rough edges. but every time that happens, there's less attention on the precarious human rights situation in north korea, more on just the positive aspects of the current sports -- [inaudible] >> my name is -- [inaudible] i'm from the nelson report. so the panel has kind of discussed the link -- or
5:27 pm
discussed the link between the human rights abuses and the regime's legitimacy. so i would just curious as to what the panel kind of thought of, you know, if the prison camps, etc., are so central to the regime's power, you know, why would they make any kind of concessions on it? thank you. >> i would ask that same question of the nuclear weapons program. you know, and that's why, you know, i said that the human rights violations and the nuclear weapons programs are two pillars for the regime. and so to just look at the wmd program without looking at the second pillar that reinforces the weapons program, i think would be shooting ourselves in the foot before we even get out of the gate. >> yeah. i think that north korea needs to be told or there needs to be a more active conversation that
5:28 pm
there can be a different future for north korea. and it doesn't have to reside in this area of rogue territory with the political prison camps and with the nuclear weapons program and the missile program. it doesn't have to stay in that space. and i think, you know, perhaps some of the more optimistic views -- i usually don't espouse these -- of the singapore summit, when kim jong un did get to walk around in singapore, and he did see what it's like there -- and, obviously, he lived also, you know, in europe for certain parts of his life -- maybe it would have an appeal. but i think it's, i think it's a really difficult question, but i don't think it's one that he really has a right to ask. no responsible actor that's recognized in the international sphere can continue to imprison
5:29 pm
extrajudicially in death-inducing conditions individuals in political prison camps. you just can't. and the reason, i think, we continue to have the nuclear negotiations too. you can't continue to have a rogue power that exists in that way. finish so it's going to take a lot of negotiation, and it's the million dollar question. i think i saw -- did you have your hand up? oh, yes. >> my name's rachel, and i'm an intern at 38th north. and so i was just wondering, like, you guys were talking about the influence of regional actors. you mentioned japan's role that they could play in human rights negotiations. but i noticed that we weren't mentioning what, anything about china. and i was just wondering what role you think that china could have in human rights negotiations and potentially pushing this agenda or,
5:30 pm
conversely, are they doing -- do you think that the talks between xi jinping and kim jong un lately have been pushing the human rights negotiations off the table? do you think -- i was just wonder what the panel's thoughts on that would be. >> well, the day china supports efforts to address -- [laughter] north korean human rights at the u.n. will be a wonderful day in my life and in your life and in everybody's life. [laughter] as one who is often on the front lines at the u.n., i can tell you for sure that china leads efforts to block civil society from participating in the u.n. process. how to i know this. -- how do i know this. our organization received u.n. consultative status this spring. we owe a huge debt of gratitude to ambassador nikki haley. the way this is done, can china, russia and other beacons of
5:31 pm
democracy -- [laughter] control, control the ngo committee. that's the gatekeeper of civil society. if you're a human rights ngo addressing only human rights in the dprk, they keep you on hold for 5, 10, 15 years. they send you the same questions every six months, they just change the wording a little bit. so ambassador haley brought us to a vote. we got shut down. again, the same beacons of democracy voted against us. so we were brought to a vote, all 54 members. and, of course, despite chinese opposition and despite opposition by others, we managed to win, i would say, by a landslide. but it's very obvious that china at the u.n. is behind efforts to stifle real civil society. not totalitarian government-controlled organizations masquerading as civil society, as ngos. so having seen this on the front
5:32 pm
line, i'm very, very skeptical. but one never knows. let's see. >> yeah. and arguably, just to add on, i mean, china should be one to have focal points of u.s. criticism of human rights abuses because they have consistently repatriated north korean ref of few gees back -- refugees back to north korea. if you haven't seen it already, the office for international religious freedom just put out a very short, like, four minute clip on a north korean refugee who was repatriated by china three times back to north korea. on one occasion she was forced to abort her child without anesthesia on a desk, not with any proper medical proceedings. and she was forced to renounce her christian faith and faced really severe punishment for mere possession of a bible. these are the types of stories that are typical of north korean
5:33 pm
refugees who are being repate -- repatriated by china on a daily basis. so i think the u.s. shouted continue to be very critical -- should continue to be very critical on china when it comes to north korea. >> maybe two quick thoughts. you know, essentially, i mean, that's a great question. we've got to bring in the regional actors. searchly, in my view -- essentially, in my view, from china's perspective, they're mainly interested in stability. anything that disrupts that is a no-win for them. they're actually more interested in the dirt of north korea rather than the regime itselfth. as long as they maintain that buffer, there's no spill over effects into china, they're mostly happy. so how do we get china interested in this issue? i would proffer a carrot and a stick. so the stick is so if, you know, you're looking at your future horoscope and you see that kim
5:34 pm
jong un one day or north korea's leadership will be forced into an international tribunal, there is that domestic version of aiding and abetting for crimes against humanity. china, now is the time you want to help facilitate this, facilitate better actions, or you may, too, be implicated in these future tribunals. the carrot is, china, you want to be a responsible stakeholder in the region, you can be one of the leaders on refugee rights. just let them pass through your country into another country that's willing to accept them. that's a great boon for you. you can tout this as, you know, your shows of leadership and nontraditional security measures, and that could be a big plus for china. >> this'll be the last question. >> this is --
5:35 pm
[inaudible] intern on capitol hill with congressman chris smith. just, and this is directed to anyone at the panel, but fairly recently i believe "the wall street journal" reported -- i might get the wording wrong, but president trump said something along the lines of he loved kim jong un p or fell in love with kim jong un, something along those lines. something really quite shocking and disturbing to anyone who takes north korean human rights seriously and takes the north korean threat seriously. and so i guess my question is what does that mean for u.s. negotiations with north korea and for the u.s. pushing the human rights concern, north korea having a president who, quite frankly, seems to be completely oblivious to the sheer evil of the north korean regime? >> first time? well, love is a complicated thing -- [laughter] even president moon, president
5:36 pm
moon in the speech he gave the evening before his speech at may the 1 at may day stadium, he said that chairman kim and i crossed the demarcation line hand in hand like two affectionate lovers. i'm not kidding you with, that was the wording he used. that said, of course, i would always focus more on the things that president trump does rather than things that he says. now, to give you an example, i mentioned our event on the 24th last week. our key note speaker, he gave both introductory and concluding remarks, was none other than the deputy permanent representative of the united states with to the united nations, ambassador cohen. under the current circumstances, when everyone regards human rights as such a sensitive issue, i think that's a very good sign moving ahead. that's a very good sign that
5:37 pm
human rights continued to be on our radar screen, usa, and that's a good sign that we will continue to play a, hopefully, positive role at the u.n. and beyond. >> yeah, good. well -- did you want to -- >> maybe just two fingers. so, one, i would agree with you that maybe compared to other negotiations with north korea, this is really top-down. usually in these sets of negotiations or any types of negotiations, bureaucrats for weeks, sometimes months hammer out the really nitty-gritty details, and finally when the summit leaders meet, it's essentially sign on the bottom, maybe hash out some of the more difficult issues. but in this case, it's all been mostly top-down which means two things. it means, one, you know, i kudos to president trump for getting us this far because we've never been able to get this far because there's not this type of senior executive talks. but two, there's a real risk
5:38 pm
what happens if negotiations fail and president trump does have the full arsenal of the u.s. military might, you know, at his fingertips. so there's both an advantage to it and at least getting as far as we have, but there's also a risk involved if things don't go the way we'd like. >> great. any final words from our panelists before we close out? all right. well, please join me in thank the panelists. [applause] and also i would be remiss if i didn't say this, my colleague, angel, would probably kill me. if any of you would like to join our mailing list, there's a sign-up out on the desk out there. so please feel free to add your e-mail address and grab any papers that you're interested in. thank you again for joining us. [inaudible conversations]
5:39 pm
[inaudible conversations] >> watch live coverage next week as congress faces a december 7th deadline to fund the federal government. seven spending bills await congressional action to avoid a partial government shutdown; homeland security, agriculture and transportation are among the departments that would be affected. one of the biggest issues to be resolved is funding for president trump's u.s./mexico border wall. the president has requested congress to provide $5 billion for the wall which democrats do not support. watch live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and see the senate on c-span2.
5:40 pm
when the new congress starts in january, the democrats will control the house, and the republicans the senate. new congress, new leaders. watch the process unfold on c-span. >> this weekend c-span's cities tour takes you to riverside, california. p with the help of our spectrum cable partners, we'll explore riverside's literary scene and history saturday at noon eastern on booktv. we visit the university of california-riverside citrus variety collection which houses more than a thousand varieties of citrus and has been at the forefront of u.s. agricultural research since the early 1900s >> this is another citrus relative that doesn't look exactly like citrus, but they're called australian finger lime. they're micro-citrus, and the cool thing is when i cut it in
5:41 pm
half with my knife and you open it up, the juice vesicles come out like little bubbles, and they -- you can see the seeds as well. but they look like caviar. >> on sunday at 2 p.m. eastern on american history tv, we explore the historic mission inn, host to u.s. presidents, sevenlies and -- celebrities and major social gatherings including the wedding of pat and richard nixon. >> in may of 1903, just about three, four months after the mission inn opened, president teddy roosevelt was here in southern california. and frank miller, the man who built the mission inn, invited him to come here, and he spent the night here in that room. at that time, it gave the epithet of the presidential suite. and that's really historically how it was known for many years. >> watch c-span's cities tour of riverside, california, saturday
5:42 pm
at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv and sunday at 2 p.m. on american history tv on c-- c-span3. working with our cable affiliates as we explore america. >> and now, military leaders on u.s. air and missile defense systems. over the next hour, you'll hear from leaders of the 32nd army, air and missile defense command and the joint air and missile defense organization. >> all right. well, thanks, everybody, for coming out. i'm tom karako, a senior fellow here at csic, and i direct the missile defense project. for the next 90 minutes or so, we're going to have two kind of back to back events. actually, two and a half hours. i'll say real quick we're not going to have any problems, but just in case we have to exit the room for anything,k


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on