tv Washington Journal Ivan Eland and Anthony Ruggiero Discuss Tensions with... CSPAN August 9, 2017 8:01am-9:01am EDT
a documentary on national debt. sean baker one for their documentary on terrorism. haley also received honorable mentions for their documentary on global warming. thank you to all the students who took part in the documentary competition. go to studentcam.org. studentcam 2018 starts in september with a scene from the constitution and you. illustrating why the provision is important, any provision. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. created as aan was public service by america passes cable television companies. it is brought to you today by your cable satellite provider.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: here to discuss events concerning north korea and the u.s. response are two guess, anthony ruggiero and ivan eland of the independent institute. a senior fellow as well as director of the center of peace and liberty. good morning. can we start with information we received concerning nuclear capability of north korea? first of all, about the capability to put it on a missile? what does that mean? no reason to doubt it. i think the intelligence community seems to be inclined to believe and also japan says they believe that they are of that capability. i do not think it is the be-all end-all. they still have other steps getting a reentry capability.
going back to earth's atmosphere, space capsules. that is one thing they have to do and maybe others as well. it is one step along the way. is asd not say the crisis severe as the media has led us to believe. one step closer. they are getting closer. it is nearing the door at the barn. >> i agree that the height is a little overplayed now. north korea has been working on nuclear weapons program and a long-range program for years. what we're seeing is not surprising. we have a tendency to underestimate what north korea is capable of. maybe they have a miniaturization. dispute as tois a the technical sphere of whether it broke up, the last test broke up.
it is still to be determined. reactiont about the from the president yesterday? is that overplayed as well? guest: we have to remember our history with north korea, that we were close to the brink of war in the 1990's and we came back from that. north korea realizes they will not attack the united states of a nuclear weapon because that would really be the end of their country. the president's words are about deterring north korea. a history with south korea or the south korean navy vessel. and really to compel china to do more. thet: i do not think rhetoric itself on the president's part. eisenhowermber how handled it, he was careful about his rhetoric and he was very successful managing the crisis. if you hyped the crisis, you can like john f.gs
kennedy who made that speech, which would be unacceptable if they did. he thought he had an agreement. he later even said if i had not made that speech, we would not have to do these things in this crisis. even if they are planning to take military action, which i hope they are not, rhetoric like this does not help. you should be speaking softly and not throwing a big stick, as teddy roosevelt used to say. i see no reason for the rhetoric at all. we'll take your calls on the situation. if you want to ask the question -- actionside from military , as far as diplomacy or
de-escalation, what is the united states have as options on that front? have diplomacy and sanctions, which we have done. ivana trump think trump is continuing largely the obama program. publicly pressuring itna more than obama did but is largely still negotiation and tightening down the sanctions with north korea. we will have to accept the fact they will get a nuclear weapon and a missile that will hit the united states and we will have to deter them. in the 1960's when he got a nuclear weapon. talk duringlot of the johnson administration about whether or not to take him out here they fortunately did not. could have a pretty severe war on the korean peninsula and we have got allies in japan and
south korea. we have to be careful what is going on here and i think the rhetoric has not helped it. as far as -- host: as far sanctions? guest: i am the optimist been we do not need to look at military action and we do not need to fall back to deterrence right now. we have not really tried sanctions. we are even anywhere close to that. the suggestion that the trump administration has continued the obama administration policy i think is not correct. the justice department has gone after chinese banks doing transactions on behalf of austria. shown thations have since 2009, at least $2.2 billion worth of transactions through the united states on behalf of north korea. north korea is not the most
sanctioned country in the world. there is a lot more we should be doing and it starts with this resolution. lead to a robust sanctions campaign or is that the chinese again delaying u.s. action? the topic of our own capability of nuclear weapons, the president tweets this out -- host: what do you think about those statements and weight of recent actions? is relating to our nuclear weapons, which most presidents would try to avoid. the sanctions are probably unlikely to work. is important for north korea appear they feel threatened and that is why they are getting the weapons.
that.is some reason for he united states continues to take out regimes. we took out haiti and more recently, saddam hussein, who did not have nuclear weapons. we made the folly in the obama administration of taking out to give up agreed nuclear weapons. if you get taken out anyway, the case of libya is a stark historical reminder that perhaps this guy is not crazy. perhaps he is rational. if he did get the nuclear weapons for that reason, you can deter him because his major goal getting the nuclear weapons is regime survival and the major goal will be to avoid nuclear war. we have a lot more warheads, thousands of them, and he has few. we do not even know if they are operational or can be made operational. it seems like they can with these tax -- with these.
will have to do because i do not think the sanctions will work. >> critics and supporters of the iran dear -- deal both agree sanctions brought iran to the new -- to the table. they are sanctions we have never tried in north korea. the secretary said pressure is a dial at five or six in may. the united states could turn to 30 tomorrow and north korea would have to choose. they are not using their money for people here they're using it for military and for these programs. what happens when kim asked to decide between those three and the military comes after him and his elites and he cannot continue those programs. it is a simple math problem from that perspective and it is important to point out there is north korea propaganda in terms of the rhetoric they always put out.
,ost examples people provide especially north korea on why north korea should be afraid of postnited states all come when they started the nuclear program and certainly after the nuclear weapons program. people forget in the george w. bush administration in the 2005 rounds, the u.s. provided an assurance that we could peacefully coexist. that was not good enough for north korea. the question is not so much should we stop our hostile policy but what does north korea really want? they want big knowledge doesn't nuclear weapons state. bob: our first call is from in boston, massachusetts, independent line. good morning. good morning. i have a, there. there are over 50 countries that have a nuclear bomb.
it is not working. i think it is time for nuclear scientists in the world strategy notes there, so there won't be a nuclear holocaust. if it's the way to the future is nuclear energy and it is probably time to start what a nuclear reactors in the center of continental plates and make -- e continental plates what do you think about that? i think it is wrong to say nuclear deterrence have not worked. we have not had a nuclear attack since hiroshima. deterrence does work and we have more weapons the north korea does. they are a small and poor country and they are reacting to us. this did not start, their fear did notnited states
start with libya or iraq invasions. staff askedhief of him after desert storm and 9091 what he land and he says, if you want to keep the united states out, get nuclear weapons. i am not saying that is the only reason north korea is getting them. i think prestige is a factor symbol because they do not have much else to a communist economy, which does not work, they are a poor country and they want attention. but i do not think we should sit -- dismiss the fact that they have security fears, whether or not they are paranoid. by think deterrence does work. i do not think he is crazy. it has been crazy, radical, and thuggish by liquidating some of but i think north
koreans have always been rational and if they are rational, you can deter them. on deterrence, we're not there yet. it is an area we do not need to go to just yet. i think that recognizes north korea as a weapon state. there are a lot of options to pursue before that. it relies on being able to determine -- deter someone like kim jong-il them. i do not think he is crazy but i would not want to bet on him not using nuclear weapons against the united states. i think the goal here should still be two new -- dean nuclear eyes and there is a way to do that. that is the way forward. virginia beach, republican line, bill is next. caller: the question is what
options does the u.s. have versus north -- north korea? by far the best option would be to choke them economically with sanctions. sanctions do not ultimately work, how confident are you to get the capability of the united point ofd hitting the release both before and after launch? the next step, i would think, in deterring north korea from hitting part of the united states. thank you. the talent of your on north korea programs, there are u.s. military officials who say of course there are military the backend show
the types of casualties possible and part of that is because north korea has a missile force that is a lot more mobile now. we're not talking about 10 years ago where they stacked imbecile on a tower for launch. i do not think we need to get to that point now. in terms of economic sanctions, i mentioned the $2.2 billion number. china, companies, individuals, banks, are facilitating north our allies are not helping either p or it allies who are employing north korea labors. $500 million a year from that. moneyn. has says that goes to nuclear weapons and missiles programs. in singapore, a company sells luxury to north korea. in europe, there was a country in austria that sold ski equipment to the ski resort. north korean people are not going to a ski resort.
it is a global effort. as the treasury and state departments in the united states need to go around the world privately and publicly and tell people that you either deal with north korea or you deal with the united dates but you cannot do both. -- united states but you cannot do both. guest: i think it is enforcement. gets bit up and all the people cheating are making money doing it. you have a little bit of a with northsituation korea and china accounts for a process -- a percent and also the chinese banks are facilitating a lot.
the prowl is china has two major disincentives for cooperating. they do not want the regime to implode because they could have possibly had a u.s. allied regime on the border with military states and intelligence the sodas with south korea and north korea reunited in germany and south korea, took over the space. they also don't want a lot of refugees running along the border if the regime collapses. they have incentives not to on northghten down korea. i think they're getting more nervous about north korea's behavior than in the past. there is still a problem with china if trump could get some leverage over china, sanctions might have at least it -- an economic effect. north korea will resist because this goes to the security of the regime. economic sanctions are good for but achieving major
political goals is what you're in this case,nd dean nuclear rising and getting rid of missiles is very important to north korea and i think they will resist sanctions all the way. sanctionsure that will be successful but they're trying them and that is better than military action but we have to watch it. sanctions can exit -- escalate into military action. people say those did not work, now what? what is the best way to interpret that? guest: they have to enforce them. there has been a long history and economic sanctions of countries saying we will do this on one level and then under the table, they make a lot of money cheating. opec is the standard model for that. it is not sanctions, but it is a cartel. they pledge that they will meet the price.
and if you can get an international cartel, that is ideal. they are usually only symbolic unless the country has a tight relationship. unilateral sanctions against china and north korea, that might do something. you have to get them to do it. quite likely with a lot of these points. china and russia value the relationship with the united states. they want transactions through the u.s. dollar. disadvantagest of the saddest leverage. if we are willing to threaten and in some cases take that away, that will get compliance. in these discussions about north korea, i remember working in the u.s. government in 2010, conversations about iran will never succumb to sanctions, that we could never go after iran's
oil revenue, that iran will never go to the negotiating table. people think of the outcome of those negotiations, all of those things happened because you have a foundation of you and sanctions overlaid with robust u.n. sanctions passed by congress and implemented by the executive. that is what happens to -- has to happen. that is never happened with north korea in the 11 years that we have had u.n. sanctions. greenbelt, maryland, democrats line, you're on with our guest. good morning. with north korea, it is now, we're going to fight north korea. we go in there and fight, that should be the last option.
it has not been effective, sanctions need to be tight enough, they are not working. china -- [indiscernible] [indiscernible] north korea would not go anywhere. the last option should be going to north korea and fight. we should involve allies, go to north korea. >> it from russia and china at this point, the strongest allies as far as north korea, -- www.c-span.org i think they
could -- guest: i think they could put together an ally and what the group should do, and i keep referring back to iran because it worked, it is very similar to what happened in iran. the coalition could take u.n. sanctions and u.s. sanctions and my onlyt those and say will you lose access to the u.s. dollar but to these other markets as well. there are some countries who ind help and assistance finding a relationship with north korea. others are not interested in they want to do business with north korea and will not be a will to do business with us. on the u.n. sanctions and a point on sex is not working, they are not working. experts isnel of specifically charged to evaluate
u.n. sanctions. it has said that non-north , only north koreans. itself is not listen to its own reports. i reiterate the fact that sections are difficult, multilateral especially in enforcement and unilateral are usually only symbolic unless we -- dominate the trade is china does, i don't see sections as the be all and all. -- i am notexample
sure sanctions with the be-all , skeptical that sanctions can even tighten sanctions will work. will reach the conclusion of what doesn't work. one thing i think we might agree , it is ill advised at this point. our guest serves as the ofior fellow the director defense policy at the cato institute, spent 50 years working for congress on national security issues. what is the institute? guest: we do public policy, which is my area. anthony ruggiero was
debbie director in the treasury department. the office of terrorist financing -- a long title. a little bit about the ?oundation, what is it guest: we work on issues related to the middle east and counterterrorism. host: our guests are here to talk about north korea and the and -- the nuclear program. independent line, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. he is trying to please hardliners and stay in power. one of our leaders has overlooked that childish .ehavior
in, --he cannot win a world with the united states. but he can gain prestige by being the strongman and not backing down and begging the united states to be entered into the world market financially and by prestige. he was jealous of south korea, the southern part of the country. the only way he can get prestige, he cannot do it competing economically but he can compete militarily. to d.c. anday come we will talk about it, like when dennis rodman came over there, you see a whole different beast of north korea and it will not be quite as belligerent. host: the history of talking about these issues with north
korea --anthony ruggiero. guest: i think secretary tillerson missed an opportunity to meet with their foreign .inister that would have been an opportunity for the united states to explain to north korea , mores coming for them robust sanctions, and reinforce what was said in public. whatever other types of ready toions, we are come back to the negotiations. in terms of this troop with north korea, it is not kind. we have tried at least four to have aimes negotiated settlement with north korea and every opportunity, north korea has violated that. north korea set up a covert forram, another pathway
producing nuclear material. in two thousand five, we had party talks, which i was a delegate to. we learned later that israel destroyed it and north korea was building a nuclear week -- nuclear reactor in syria. when it comes to north korea, there is no real evidence they will abide by any kind of settlement at this time. the caller made an interesting point that sometimes only take the military action or impose more sanctions, it has a rally around the flag affect. kim jong-il and can get domestic points among hardliners for standing up to the u.s. also with the population -- they can with the population into a more friendly with the west. control of information. north koreans do not get a lot of outside information. it is easy for them to do.
there is a rally around sanctions and military threats and some people say he is like a spoiled child you should just ignore. it gets hard to do that. politicians have to appear tough to their own populations. little bit ofa that. it is always tempting to ask what the united states should do about this or that problem. trump had a point where perhaps the allies should be doing more
themselves in this region. . on the record, but this alliance , south korea has 40 times the gdp. it is not 1950 anymore where the parties were not equal. south korea needs to take more initiative and they will not do it if we keep racing over there every time they do a missile making threats. so trump speaks to one side during the campaign and is now taking the other side. his foreign policy has always been like that. we have have a missile in south korea and what kind of defense does that provide? guest: it provides some.
are great.s at home ongives you a probability certain types of missiles, not necessarily i see bvm but , they have gone that way. missile defense is an imperfect solution. i wish you keep working on it. i do not have much confidence in it now. the national system have done studies that show the probability is not that high. they are always under ideal circumstances. you have to say if this hit in a .eal-world situation systems for shorter range
missiles are better than the national system. >> i agree this is a system that needs to be worked on still. i think the theater and shorter range are more effective. it is more directed at shorter and medium-range ballistic missiles. it was good to see the south korean president to play the launchers and it was unfortunate he stopped deployment for an environmental study. i guess it does not mean as much now given the the north korea missile threat. we have to keep in mind we have u.s. troops on a peninsula and when south koreans make decisions about missile defense, it defects host: our decisions as well. it affects our-- decisions as well. host: st. petersburg. don't have arump
policy. fourn't know nothing about and -- foreign -- host: we lost the line. direct policy from north korea? policy is maximum pressure and engagement. is escalation ladder and we are in the bottom rung. how many more times will we move up the ladder? i would argue we need to do that immediately. it is really hard to engage when you have the other party that continues to do missile tests, will probably do a nuclear test at some point, and has stated very clearly they're not
negotiatingn nuclear weapons and missile programs. we don't have maximum pressure yet of course. frankly, if trump wanted to do that, he could tighten down on china and say the whole trade relationship will be based on helping north korea. whether or not it he wants to do that, that is another matter. i would caution against it. he can pressure china to do more but the president has not been satisfied with that and has said so publicly on twitter, that he hoped they would do more. there are a couple of reasons china has no incentive to do that. china is still a key. multilateral sanctions and the trade relationship is fairly unique. china the trade goes to
and a lot of financing and loans go to china. oncan tighten down territorial sanctions with and say that chinese banks cannot operate and we will not let them do anything with the united states if the chinese bank helps north korea, but that is a drastic sanction and you have to, if you put a , andf economic sanctions the united states is the premier user of economic sanctions because we feel any problem in the world is ours to solve, it marketnes your own free and your reliability as a trading partner if you are continuously saying this political issue and this political issue, we have got put sanctions on it. away --ay we will shied shy away from trading with you.
on,ime you put sanctions you have to recognize the larger issue. i do not think our president does enough of that. john, louisiana republican line. caller: unlike those in a think tank, i spent 25 years in your command whose business was to engage in global nuclear war. and ballisticad missiles, land-based plastic missiles. i was in the aircraft business. that is when there was of the soviet union, irrationally led country, and the united states, or the two nuclear superpowers. himeed to have a policy that does basically the same
thing. as irrational as north korea is, there still has to be rationality. though the soviet union struck us first, and that was part of -- policy, the nuclear did retaliation would be at such a theitude that it deterred first strike. we need to perhaps use a little because it knowledge worked. we did not have a nuclear war or a strike. but we were prepared to. hit --s to be shaped to fit to the scenario with north korea. i am sure we still have those assets available. . retired 25 years ago nuclear war is nuclear war is nuclear war. it is a horrific war. appropriate and what we have today is to to informwhat we had the soviet union at north korea
to get them to understand. cannot have nuclear weapons. i think the caller is right. he is basically saying deterrence and you have to make it viable. if you want to privately north koreans and say listen, in no uncertain terms, if you threaten us, we will retaliate, and it will be bad for you, and you have a home address, and you can be deterred, and we will incinerate your home address, and we can find you and we know where you that is fine in a private manner. but the president by making blustering statements, he is backing himself into a corner where he really has to do a preemptive strike. that is very dangerous. that episode of the cuban missile crisis, when he gets to do, leaders are forced
stuff to satisfy their own base, their own government, sometimes. but we needill work to -- express this more privately. i do think he is irrational as i mentioned before. his behavior has been somewhat rational. as i said, he is quirky and erratic but i see no reason to think he is any less rational than in the 1960's. >> i agree he is rational but he of doubts -- bouts irrationality. in nerve agent, he has other thousand of irrationality. deterrence is not a strategy now. our military leaders have plans a nuclear strike
by north korea, or, as described in the public, preventative strikes. the issue, i know there are a lot of questions about private messaging. i think secretary shall tillerson should have met with the foreign minister of north korea this weekend. let's give them my north korea it has closed all of these avenues to communication. they do not communicate through the doom of -- demilitarized zone. a channel in new york that the u.s. and north korea used close by north korea in july of 2016. we have to be clear when we are talking about, don't send public messages because we should send them in private, it is back to the you need to to tango. north korea is cutting off a lot of avenues.
maybe that is the way to interpret the president's message, to not cross the line. we have to be careful describing it as a redline or the president painting himself in a corner. i think that is equally dangerous escalating rhetoric. we do not want a scenario where north korea feels like they must respond. we back to solutions here. what is congress's role in this situation particularly what you reference yesterday with the president? we have seen senator mccain critical of it and chuck schumer critical of it and others. what is congress's's role? ask thenk they will right questions about why we have the rhetoric and what is the strategy behind it. when we are talking about the policy, i know senators and congressmen have in asking the right questions about when the
sanctions will be implemented. some are mandatory. what is the maximum pressure and what ispolicy the engagement part of the policy? folks on capitol hill should ask a question about why didn't secretary tillerson meet with the foreign minister? part of the problem when you do not meet with someone especially in adversary is we allowed china and south korea to deliver the message for us and i would not theysouth korea, though are an ally, i do not want them delivering u.s. policy. it should be the united states. you can talk to north korea and say we not going to these negotiations -- in washingtonency and in think tanks to negotiate north korea policy side.
they will have a list of demands for us and we have to decide if we are ready to meet. i thought it was curious they did not have that either especially after trump-pence that i would be willing to meet with the leader of north korea face to face. everyone thought that was a bit over-the-top. curious they do not take advantage of a low-level meeting. i think congress can play a useful role and is playing a greater role in foreign policy. it is particularly a good comment by john mccain, a hawk and well-established. basically said the president should not have said what he said. the president basically implied we will use nuclear weapons and threaten a country with nuclear weapons here we have not heard that in a long time if ever we have heard it before.
behink john f. kennedy may with the cuban missile crisis, but that is ill advised, to say things like that. even if you want to make public threats, that is not a good one to make. we might take conventional weapons, but that would of course create a war that would kill probably millions of koreans. here, thatetoric somebody had a conversation with the president, and the president allegedly said it would be over that was not here, if said, that is irresponsible and not a public statement by the president but i believe the , lindsey congress graham, said he had a conversation with trump and lindsey graham's a half, but i'm not sure it was good to report that conversation. and is loose rhetoric
think that is what a lot of people fear, that the president does not have much foreign may get aerience and little ahead of himself with the rhetoric he is putting out. hear from bob, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was an active military junior -- duty. ship anda took our spy i know a lot of us were on active duty and were irritated they did not take any action. and wouldas tortured not let go until december of 1968. 50 years in the future, we are sitting here talking about think tanks and presidents not taking any actions. what have we done to take the region seriously? we allowed them to build up the
military, to build nukes. attackingey will be andersen air force base? how much of this do we have to take? we talk about sanctions. we have -- if we had taken sanctions in the past and taken it seriously, i do not care how many think tanks are out there. why not do something to bring this to fruition? guest: we do have to examine policy issues and that is what think tanks do in d.c. and other the reason we have not done anything is there are factors mitigating that. this is a difficult issue. go out and take military action and this will have tremendous military
consequences for a war on the korean peninsula. miles away, 35 which separates north korea. any sort of retaliation by north korea could become serious and the danger is that even a surgical attack would turn into a major war and the potential for escalation is there. around saying things like we should have done this or that . why is the defect of option always military? we seem to take military action all over the world and i think some of our military action, we , over time, you say well, maybe i should get nuclear weapons because they may come after me someday.
and exacerbating factor in the current issue. they took that libya even after playing ball with terrorism, get rid of the nuclear program, etc.. guest:.ry bad incentive in theack in history george w. bush and ministration, north korea had a list of demand and every demand's -- every demand was met. whether it was talking about peaceful coexistence to get over the hospital policy, i remember long ago north korea was interested in economic development and energy dependency. they wanted more energy. in the 1990's, the clinton administration provided, we will build water reactors for north korea to have energy for the country. enough that was not good or they wanted to change their
this they switched to hospital policy and the george w. bush administration not only did not, they took them off the state sponsor of terrorism list, still not on, which is pretty amazing, and on and on. the question really is as we north korea is saying they're not interested in negotiating nuclear weapons and missile programs. at one level, we have to believe them. it would be nice to hear from them what it would take for this type of negotiated settlement. i also want to make a point about a script -- escalating rhetoric. there are not a lot of people who look at north korea propaganda, all of the missile tests have gotten publicity. what they have done have not gotten a lot of publicity. in most cases after the missile tests, they have shown destroying the
capital, destroying san francisco, destroying the united states with a nuclear weapon. you have to be very clear about what north korea is doing on their own side in terms of host: escalating the rhetoric. dawn in -- of escalating the rhetoric. n in texas, republican line. caller: why can't we should down his missiles when they rise above international waters in the oceans? they are the aggressor and they are threatening our territories and allies throughout southeast asia and pacific here that we have the right to defend ourselves? when this be an ideal to test our antimissile defenses? we can do this without attacking or shooting anybody. i just don't understand. the united states has made clear they have been
watching the missile test preparations. going back to the july 4 test, and even before that, tests this year and last year, there was a sense north korea was moving, testing in different places, not testing in traditional missile test areas within north korea, is the question was united states seeing that? ,t was very clear unfortunately, that the united states was watching some time the preparations. that tells me the united states has an option if they wanted to use it to stop a test if they wanted to do that. the issue is what comes next could be the same as the all-out war with north korea. in other words, even though kim
is rational, if you are taking out a missile or after he gets probably not international but probably outside north korea waters, there is no guarantee that the next step will not be a full military complex. of course you have to hit their missile first, unless you take it out -- a lot more provocative, but of course, the is not system we have necessarily going to be 100%. ascould be worse off as far deterring north korea. we tried everything with them. we tried wrapping them, as we mentioned, giving them this or that, i think that was a mistake. signed agreements with them and we tell them up and sign new agreements with them.
i think ultimately we will probably have to rely on to, as i said on occasions before here, nothing seems to work. i am not as optimistic about sanctions. i think messing with testing could trigger a war. with deterrence, we have thousands of nuclear warheads. i see no reason we cannot deter them in the future. in north carolina, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for your guests today. this is an interesting discussion. there has been a lot of talk about sanctions and a lot of talk about nuclear war. we don't want a nuclear war. talking about what can be accomplished by the united
states and its allies with sanctions. sanctions against china. if they will not cooperate because they have more leverage in this case, but nobody ever china do ifwhat can we get too tough with them? in terms of sanctions. we have had wars for years now. a lot of the money for the wars is being lent to us by china. i would like somebody to talk about what can china do with that we would suffer? backlash from china? is and i have been a little suspicious trump wants to use the issue to do protectionist measures against china. the ideal issue here, i do not know if he is doing it or not, but certainly free trade is a two-way street.
china could do a lot against us and people like cheap goods coming in, they do not like to play -- pay high prices, etc., you could hurt our economy as well. free trade and it's everybody. to see theke relationship go downhill. i'm a unilateral free trader. china, the currency manipulator or anything else, they are also hurting their economy as well. retaliateainly could and we could end up in a trade over this,em especially if you have extraterritorial sanctions on extraterritorial measures against them and say you are not pressuring north korea, we are going to put whatever, and of course that could escalate to a
trade war. that would be very unfortunate, i would think. there is a tendency to go to extremes between trade war with china and the status quo, which is really not addressing china passes sanctions. it is important to point out the trump administration went after a small chinese bank for violating u.s. law. everyone predicted before that happened that the chinese were going to retaliate and jump up and down. the chinese response has been muted. the chinese bank is a money launderer for north korea. i would point out there are lower levels of actions you can take against chinese banks. again, i would point out in the iran case, the united states find european financial institutions 22015 over $12
billion for iran sanction violations. against the chinese bank, even the largest chinese bank and the largest in the world, bank of china or other chinese banks, that will say they're not doing the right thing in terms of compliance and that will have a trickle down effect. chinese banks will go to smaller chinese banks and they will make a decision against north korea and north korea will see the squeeze andt to they have to make a decision, do we pay our generals, do we get luxury goods for the elites, or do we continue these programs? they will not be able to do all three. host: bill, independent line. you are on the air. go ahead. hey, i just want to say we are the united states of or the united states of
europe? and asia? what do you mean by that? caller: my ancestors go way back. i believe it is the united states of america. when we continue to bring people america and weo cannot even help the ones in poverty in the country, there is something wrong there. host: we will leave it there. forward, whatng positive step and what is a negative step? guest: positive would be to lower the rhetoric and let's give the new sanctions time to see what they can do. i am pessimistic but it would be better to go that route than the blustering rhetoric implying you
will use nuclear weapons against another country. would bepositive step going to china and giving them a short deadline and saying if they don't implement these our owns, we will use section spirit and negative step would be jumping into negotiations at this time to no leverage and we will get a bad deal again. ,ost: anthony ruggiero defenddemocracy.org is the website. also, ivan eland. independent.org is a website for that organization. thank you for the conversation. coming up, we will talk with bruce brown, the executive director for the freedom of the press. he will talk about the trump administration crackdown on leaks. that conversation is up next. ♪
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on