built goods to a large extent to become part of the resist movement. host: that was our last color. -- caller. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. now, we take you to live coverage of an event at the heritage foundation. digging strategically about human rights challenges in negotiations with north korea. >> i was there to do media for heritage, specifically because heritage really wanted to highlight the issues of human rights that we feared truly were potentially going to be left off the agenda in singapore. if the trumps, administration is willing to call forth complete verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of north korea's nuclear program, why not call for complete verifiable, irreversible

dismantlement of north korea's prison camps as well. obviously, the singapore summit came and went. human rights issues played little to no role in the negotiation process. pompeo claims of the issues of religious freedom are raised. other than that, we really have not heard anything that was raised during those discussions. this is a missed opportunity on the trump administration's part. prior to the singapore summit, you had a lot of issues raised surrounding concerns about human rights abuses then. everyone remembers the state of when severedress human rights abuses were highlighted in north korea. do even have the remarkable meeting with the president with several refugees.

earlier this year, congress reorganized the north korean human rights act. singapore summit, it seems like human rights issues have been completely slipped off the negotiating table. trump-kim summit potentially on the horizon, i want to highlight reasons why i think human rights issues and political present cap issues should be raised at the upcoming summit or even in negotiations happening behind closed doors. i outlined this in the paper some of you may have picked up when you came in. the first contention is that they camera regime uses human rights abuses to maintain its grip on power. it is the very threat of having three generations of your family sent to a political present camp or the potential to be brutally ofcuted for mere possession

a bible, watching a south korean drama. the ability to maintain a grip on power is the reason his regime continues to have the human rights abuses and carry them out and the way he does. if he didn't, maybe the north korean people would have an opportunity of speaking out against our government and against the practices that are so egregious. second, i believe that raising concerns about human rights 'ssues contradicts kim jong-un propaganda about the u.s. he repeatedly tells us people that the u.s. is only interested in going to war. raising human rights issues and using information effort to get those messages into north korea has the ability to contradict that propaganda and a way that we can't even measure have potentially beneficial that can be. the third reason is that north korea profits from its human

rights abuses. in 2012, north korea spent $300 million on its luxury facilities. $644 million on luxury goods. $1.3 billion on its missile program. not koreame year, requested only $111 million from the world food program. if north korea is able to spend that much on luxury and missiles, it is able to feed its people and is profiting on the human rights abuses. north korea profits uniquely from the prison camps. forced labor in prison camps is free labor for the regime. may bethat, forced labor used expressly for the purpose of developing its various chemical, biological and nuclear and missile programs. 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 a egregious. it is helping the regime to continue. number five, kim jong-un may be persuaded that it is actually in his interest to eliminate the prison camps in order to gain legitimacy in the international space. the very reason why north korea developed its nuclear and missile program is for its own legitimacy and to maintain its regime's stability. so importantt is that u.s. negotiators clearly communicate that no leader who imprisons his own people in brutal concentration my camps can be viewed as stable or legitimate. we have to communicate that prior to a second trump-kim summit.

decision toration's leave human rights off the table in singapore was arguably a victim -- victory for kim jong-un, because it meant that north korea was able to set the terms for negotiations, something they should not be doing. the ultimate ask should be for complete, there are fireball irreversible dismantlement -- irrevocable, dismantlement of the missile program. another first step could be to call for the release of all women and children inside north korea who pose no security threat to the regime. a few weeks ago, i had the pleasure of visiting the holocaust memorial museum. i think it is a staple in washington.

visit wast i got to on americans and the role they play during the holocaust. it is a mixed bag. this is sort of a shaming moment for americans to watch what the response was like during the holocaust. exhibitticular museum highlighted u.s. responses and reports of the concentration camps. one of the most amazing things with the number of newspaper reports that have been written and the number of individuals who did speak out. even the importance of a single government official, henry haeu, he spoke out unconvinced fdr to start the war refugee board, which is the reason so many individuals who would have suffered in the holocaust were able to fight refuge and freedom here in the

united states. it is a reminder that individual citizens and their actions atter and how governments spot -- respond to atrocities is meaningful. a report released in 2014 found that human rights abuses and north korea are without parallel in the contemporary world. and 120,0000 individuals in the local prison camps. that is probably a conservative estimate. over 400,000 individuals have already perished in these camps. 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 abdicate for the rights and liberties of the north korean people? i would say we do not. it is now my pleasure to introduce our panelists. each one was selected for a particular reason.

joan covers both national security and human rights issues. he and a fellow staffer wrote a fabulous paper for the national bureau for asian research arguing that the u.s. government should find more natural ways to integrate human rights negotiations. greg because he is greg and doesn't need interaction. 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. fellow anda senior foundation chair at the brookings institution center for east asia policy studies. on national security challenges facing the united including ant asia instability and enter korean

ties. she has held senior positions at the center intelligence agency. prior to her work in national security, she taught at hunter college in new york city and studied in south korea as a fulbright scholar. 2014-2016, she served as the deputy national intelligence officer in the office of the director of national intelligence. in that role, she led u.s. intelligence community's production of strategic analysis on the korean peninsula. she provided direct analytic support to the national security council. she graduated with an under i graduate -- undergraduate degree from colgate and a phd from columbia. is a personal friend of mine

and is the director of the national bureau for asian research washington. he leads the engagement with the u.s. congress and the media and works closely with research to develop and implement nonpartisan outreach strategies that and a great congressional needs and perspectives. he previously worked on capitol hill where he managed a portfolio of somatic and regional issues related to foreign policy, international law. previously, he served at the robert f kennedy human rights. he graduated with a jd from george washington university. a ba in philosophy from baylor university and is attending the same georgetown program i was in, the masters of asian studies. director for human rights in north korea and washington, d.c.

he is a visiting professor from seoul. he is vice president on the executive board of korean studies. prior to that, he worked at the korea economic institute and washington, d.c. he has other very important things, but i'm going to move on so we can get to our discussion. thank you all for joining us today. june: olivia wrote a fabulous paper that is outside. she gave you a preview of that in our talk here. i'm so grateful for her and heritage for hosting this event on human rights. i want to tell you about a tale of two presidential speeches.

year, president trump gave a speech at the un's annual -- general assembly talking about north korea. this was after the icbm missile test launches and a nuclear test and war of words between kim and trump. speech,general assembly president trump talked about everything that north korea has done wrong and the things that -- the international norms that north korea has violated. he talked about nuclear and theistic missiles, but also murder of his half-brother in malaysia using chemical and biological weapons. he talked about north korea's past proliferation. he talked about the japanese japanese citizens

that north korea conducted in the past. he also talked about human rights. and about the detention and eventual death of otto. fast-forward to the un's general assembly speech and 2018. president trump said missiles and rockets were no longer flying in every direction. nuclear testing has stopped and remains of our following heroes are being returned to lay at rest and american soil. he went on to thank president moon for facilitating the diplomacy with kim jong-un. this is in addition to what i feel are gratuitous complements to kim jong-un for engaging in diplomacy. in that same speech, president and applaudedd the withdrawal from the united

states from the human rights council. the u.s. had withdrawn support for the international court as if to. the fact that we are not going to raise the human rights issue with kim jong-un or north korea anymore. it may be true for some countries and in some groups toecurity separate human rights issues and heart issues. there is a sense that sometimes human rights can wait, and that it is a soft issue that can be taken care of at some later date, at some later time after the thornier issues in north korea's case of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons program has been resolved. human rights can wait. i would argue that that is not the case in north korea.

perspective, human rights violations and north korea's pursuit of its weapons of mass destruction are two pillars that undergird the regime as it is and its desire to cement its nuclear weapons status. these pillars are mutually reinforcing. as olivia and others have pointed out, human rights violations pay for the weapons program. in the 100,000 or so overseas laborers, hundred thousand are so laborers in the camps, the corruption of the elite as well as working classes. in its proliferation, diversion of resources, to the nuclear missiles and elite lifestyle. violations are embedded in the ideological the scent ofcrash

from the neighborhood watch is up to the national level. you could argue on the national stage in which north korea uses violence to quiet the scent. defectors and others. 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. violationsn rights are justifications for the nuclear weapons program. because of the hostile outside said that regime has it requires absolute loyalty to the kim family. kim jong-un said the nuclear button is on his desk. because of the hostile outside hostile u.s. policies, it is only kim jong-un that stands between north

korea's survival or destruction. the human rights violations are required from kim's perspective to ensure his supremacy in this monolithic system as well as to lay the path or smooth the path for additional generations of the kim family. 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, that to instillslieve that kim fear and we should have faith confidence confidence in his p, 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 is not even on the table or agenda for negotiations and diplomacy with kim, it would be to only look at one pillar of what makes the north korean regime strong. defiance of the international community. his efforts to address any of these issues would of been a signpost that he was serious about dismantling the nuclear weapons program. i will end there and i look forward to my colleagues comments. dan: thank you so much for inviting me. you and i have discussed this a number of times.

imd and with the international bureau of asian research. we are a nonprofit think tank. ,e work across the issues working with scholars from the u.s. and asia. well my comments today are my own and don't reflect those of reflectrofit, they do the issues we are discussing. let me build off of their remarks. today's event is thinking strategically about human rights in negotiations with north korea. the first question to me is, what did human rights have to do with our current nuclear negotiations? i would argue three points. number one, human rights is a powerful tool of persuasion

against north korea. north korea is particularly sensitive to and response to pressure against its human rights record. for many years, folks have argued that that is the argument against raising human rights issues. it is too sensitive. they will just walk away from the table. i think history has shown that when the u.s. and international community are stalwart and raising these issues, north korea has shown its willingness to deal. case in point is the example olivia raised with the one --mission of inquiry report u.n. commission of inquiry report. in order to vote for the toommendation of kim jong-un the international criminal court

, from that mounted international pressure. for the first time, north korea tod there foreign minister the un's general assembly to plead against this indictment. for the first time, north korea opened its doors and invited the un's special repertoire to come visit. north korea except in some of the recommendations of its human rights record under periodical review. they accepted some recommendations, implementation still remains questionable. contrary toto say, the views in the past, when the issues, stand on these north korea has shown it is willing to work on this. opening its doors to a special

repertoire, sending a foreign minister, accepting recommendations on paper. this art game changing. that said, for north korea, those are giant leaps. they're able to maintain that level of pressure and focus, we can see what the next steps could be. human rights is also an indicator of good will in negotiations. these are the three americans released prior to the summit in singapore. the white house had signaled that the release would be a good will toward negotiations. onse americans were detained various charges. walked through a show trial and detained.

when north korea released them, it gave political capital to president trump to announce that this is a domestic victory and health aide in the process of making the argument that i should meet with kim. the other example from the summit is the release of , their names.ar under law, family members have a right to access the remains of the family members. again, president trump raised this in person. it was reported with kim directly. he said this was something people have been pressuring me on i wanted to raise it to you. kim accepted immediately. change the doesn't structural human rights situation inside north korea, but it is evidence that north korea is willing to trade human rights bargaining chips as a measure of goodwill.

advancing human rights can contribute to our own national security interest. one is the labor campaign issue that the money they gain is an important source of foreign currency overseas and could contribute to the nuclear weapons program. i will throw a number out there. if you take a look at the numbers between how much money north korean labor camp's raised compared to how much money it is reported that the north korean nuclear program is -- here it is. report,g to a 2015 un it was estimated that 50,000 north koreans are working one partand bring in

billion-one- $1.2 $.3 billion per year. spending stands between $1.1 billion-three $.2 billion overall. i'm not a great mathematician, but if i take that and overlay them, i see a lot of overlap. one of the positions the administration could take is that if you scale down or eliminate these labor camps and take meaningful steps on denuclearization, we will open up trade and eight sanctions to make up for that sanction. the other example, refugees. north korean refugees crossed from the north korean border and usually cross into a third-party country. if they are lucky, they make it to a safe haven in th

south korea. it is in our national security interest for this to happen. refugees have experienced, and oftentimes make him through they are debriefed by national intelligence services both in south korea and the u.s. , you have up you go got people closer in access to the decision-making spheres, you have better intel. a couple of things i didn't mention are related to the most egregious of violations in north korea, those related to the

massive political prison camps, arbitrary executions, detentions, firing squads, and north korea's use of their resources. both denuclearization and closing prison camps won't happen overnight. that said, it is important to put the issue on the agenda and leave a little daylight and make incremental steps that can both improve human rights in a small way and said our national security interests. greg: thank you very much for the invitation. i would also like to say that the committee for human rights represented by david maxwell, one of the board members, here in the audience today. i should begin by saying i'm not here to bash or criticize president moon in relationship to north korean human rights policy.

we all understand there are good reasons why he won a landslide in the elections last year. there are negative side effects that south korea is still dealing with. his election had to do with that very much. president moon's approach to north korea has to do with this drive to make progress as quickly as possible. in this process, it seems that human rights has been left behind. hope is not lost. i do hope that president moon's advisors understand that it is not too late to integrate human rights concerns in south korea's approach. said, there are two aspects i would like to address today. over the past years, especially since the february 2014 uncoi

report, there has been action by advocacy groups and action at the u.n. driven by what i would describe as an informal coalition of like-minded states. the united states, european union, republic of korea, japan and others, australia, new zealand, and so on. are mutually reinforcing. we would not have a north korean human rights movement if it weren't for north korean escapees who have been leaving the country, especially since the days of the great famine. there are currently 31,000 of them in south korea. wherever they might be in south korea, in the u.s., in canada, germany, u.k., they need protection. they need assistance in their voices must be heard.

their voices must not be muffled. we speak with a lot of human rights activists, especially in south korea. they are expressing very serious concerns. their funding has been drastically reduced. the cultureou know, of charity in south korea is very different from the united states. 's is very difficult for ngo and even more so for human depend ons to individual donations, corporate donations, it is unavoidable. they have to depend on government funding. that has been drastically reduced. to the north korean human rights act finally passed in south korea after more than 10 years, a north korean human rights foundation was

established. that foundation has been the -- de facto dismantled. our friends in south korea are telling us that regrettably, south korean law enforcement sensors the content they send into north korea. there are no more balloon launches. pursuant to the military to military agreement, given the existence of the no-fly zone, there will be no more balloons are drones. one of the few vehicles left is plastic bottles that are filled with rice. -- are inserted and thrown into the sea. the current take some of north. there have been instances when south korean cops showed up, asked to see the usbs, checked the content.

anything about the assassination of his brother in malaysia, not ok. k-pop,religious drama -- religious,, still ok. a couple of weeks ago, colonel maxwell, roberta and i spoke with a chief who mentioned the lorean -- korean escapee that appeared and complained that there were no more public appearances. they are no longer invited to speak in south korea. in that regard, there are serious concerns. what it takes is to protect, support and give a voice to these escapees. certainly, there is another aspect. that is u.n. action. in that regard, i mentioned that

informal coalition of like-minded states. have seen it u.n. general a resolutions on north korean human rights for 14 years now. in particular, since the february 2014 uncoi reports, every year we see strong un human rights council resolutions. in the fall, in the third committee of the general assembly, we have seen strong human rights resolutions. dprk human rights resolutions. all of these including paragraphs on crimes against humanity. accountability. resolutions, the i-16 was mentioned. it is important that these two

issues be included in any new resolution. anything short of that would be a calamity for the north korean human rights movement. 2014,er, since december north korean human rights has been placed on the agenda of the un security council. recall, it takes nine out of 15 recall, it takes nine out of 15 vaux permanent and not permit 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 included, placed on the agenda of the security council this year as well. two of my colleagues in the audience today work with me in new york city last week. we had a conference on the 24th. theas meant to celebrate

upcoming 70th anniversary of the u.n. universal declaration of human rights. we had two witnesses, one of them a former political prisoner in north korea, the other was a former worker officially dispatched overseas. he cannot talk too much about it . we work under extraordinary pressure. never seen before prior to a human rights event. the event was counseled 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 is under pressure, one sees that even events at the u.n. are faced with increasing pressure. the magnitude we haven't seen

before. encouraging when one hears the south korean foreign say that north korean human rights is a global issue. this could mean two things. one, we are not going to address north korean human rights in bilateral negotiations. addresswo, we will north korean human rights within the multilateral context at the u.n.. i do hope that the second point remains valid in the coming weeks and months, especially in the coming weeks. it will be very difficult for significant action at the u.n. to happen without the active involvement of all of those key actors. leaves,only one of them

the sides not to participate actively in this effort of the u.n. it will become extraordinarily difficult to press ahead with action addressing north korean human rights. i would like to reinforce the the panelists have regime doese dprk care about human rights. lastly, the permanent mission to the united nations issued statements harshly criticizing the government of japan and astralia for their support of general assembly resolution addressing north korean human rights. again, i'm in full agreement colleagues the north korean human rights can be integrated in the inter-korean peace and reconciliation

process. north korean rights can also be integrated within the denuclearization talks. there 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 our president reagan and secretary of state schultz, caring so much. union getting serious about this particular issue, was indeed interpreted as indication that there was credibility on the other front as well as on the nuclear front. despite relatively harsh circumstances, i will continue to be cautiously optimistic and hope that the government of

south korea, president moon's advisors will understand the importance of integrating human rights in their approach to north korea. there can be no economic development in the future. without paying attention to the north korean human rights issue. thank you for listening. olivia: thank you for all of your incredibly insightful remarks. i'm going to ask a couple of questions. one of the reasons i coordinated the program was because i wanted to draw this linkage between the national security issues and human rights issues and helpful you did get that throughout everyone's remarks. one of the frustrating things looking at u.s. government efforts is the way the state

department is set up. it unnaturally divides the sum of the human rights issues from the security issues. i think you see this and so many ways. as humans, we can only master so much information at once on it is hard to get that together. i think it is going to be really important in the months ahead that we integrate those issues together. is, in theestion next couple of months, you have opportunities at the u.n. to raise these issues, what would you say are key milestones you ?ould look for jung: i think pompeo said that

he raised the idea of the abductions. it could have just been tacked onto the end of i have to say it, so i'm going to say it. i think the narrative now is a progress, where north korea is making progress on the singapore summit and the various agreements with south korea. i think that trajectory right now is still of a notion that there is progress on those issues. with human rights and other issues being sidelined. i'm not sure that we are going to see issues like this. if anything, japan is raising the human rights issue as greg has pointed out, as has

australia. is where the pressure still have to be coming from the outside. highlight the fact that maximum pressure, which included spectral sanctions on things like cold, fisheries -- fisheries -- which seem benign, but they require forced labor. profits that can be diverted and have been diverted to wishing priorities on the nuclear weapons program. we will see how much of that maximum pressure on the sanctions and implementing the sanctions are going to be implemented and strengthened over the next few months. i would look at those couple of but greg has mentioned about how the like-minded

countries and groups are talking about human rights. secondly, how we continue to implement what remains of maximum pressure. dan: building off of that. confirming ad specialist on north korea, that position has been vacant for the last two years. there's a question on whether it is better are not to have an individual specializing in human rights as opposed to developing that into a broader portfolio. it is better to have an envoy on human rights than nothing at all at this point. number two, i think greg had looking out for the u.n. general assembly resolutions to see whether or not they do include human rights as a baseline, also criminal accountability.

third, building off with jung said about the potential abeussion, prime minister has reached out for a summit with kim jong-un. happens, see how far the prime minister gets on the discussions, and the other part is president trump has signaled he is open to a second summit with kim. i think it would be very important there to see whether or not human rights makes it on that agenda. i u.n. general assembly resolution and third com mittee, the issue of north korean human rights being placed on the agenda of the security heuncil, and it, t appointment of a special envoy.

the current might be in a very difficult position. there are times in somebody really needs to deal with this issue full-time. one example is that of the papal visit. this is an opportunity to approach the vatican and raise human rights concerns. i it does happen, by the way, think of things have come out of papal visits over the years. and the, there are many caveats that olivia raises in her paper. this would be a particular opportunity for a special envoy to engage and basically participate and relevance north korea human rights policy. there is another issue i would like to raise, 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 organizations. they have serious concerns pertaining to their funding. we understand that. i would like to see human rights groups and humanitarian agencies coming a little bit closer together. perhaps, humanitarian agencies and especially you and agencies -- un agencies involved in north korea, i understand they are under tremendous pressure again. the application of the human rights upfront approach will be very important. anput it simply, it is unattainable position to be running a sanitation and water projects to a prison camp. operationstarian have taken place in the immediate vicinity of the tension facilities and even unlawful detention facilities.

if the world health organization has a program titled, healthy presence, why not seek access to some of north korea's detention facilities. why not try to apply this type of program to north korea's detention facilities as well. in order to do that, when need experts who have the time to basically address this full-time. these are all very important issues. the coming weeks between now and the end of the year, the coming weeks will be absolutely critical for the fate of the north korea human rights movement and for the fate of action at the u.n. as well. olivia: i would like to open it up to the audience. please make sure it is a question. let's start with the gentleman in the back. hello. thank you so much.

this is such a nuanced an interesting issue, politically. i understand the sensitivities. my question is probably for you, greg. clarify, is that your argument that the men administration actually has a policy of trying to file its that is -- silence the defectors at the moment? is it because of a concerned their. political opposition inside south korea to his overall push for reconciliation, or is it more of a concern that not silencing these people will upset kim jong-un and make them less willing to keep talking? i wouldn't go as far as stating that the mood administration has a policy to suppress north korean activists and human rights groups. have seen and south korea is that when conservative administrations are in power, humanitarian assistance groups

are under more pressure when progressive administrations are in power, human rights groups are under more pressure. there seems to be mark pressure now then wepressure saw under previous administrations. everost senior defector established a defector organization in the late 1990's. that organization was quietly funded by the south korean government, even under the administrations of the progressive presidents. the funding was cut, effective january 1 of this year. i wouldn't go as far as to say that this is a highly targeted policy of suppression. certainly, this is part of an effort to appease kim jong-un and the kim regime. theave seen reports of ministry of unification banning

a north korean defective reporter from participating in an event involving north korean officials. the minister of the unification of south korea had to apologize for this mishap. perhaps people get overzealous in the process. there is this overwhelming mood that seems to favor appeasement of the north korean regime. this is pretty 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, progressive as well. >> my name is peter. i note that uranium mining is

still going on. you think that is the first thing that would be stopped. usingalso possibly infrared to see which factors -- where factories are. i think we are being sold an immense bill of goods. i would like you just to talk more about what our plan b is. when you add up the number of people who have died in the prison camps under the cam regime. you get about one million people. that is five or six atomic bombs worth of human bodies. why hasn't anyone pointed that out to the last administration or this administration? why do not make it very clear that the most deadly weapon of mass distraction in north korea is the prison camps? if we could get a ban on a prison camps rather than nuclear weapons, that would be a very

good deal because nuclear weapons can't use, what is going on? jung: i think that just because they are not testing -- progress has been made by the fact that there have not been any tests in the last year. 2006 is any guide that when there was no test relaunches, that is in the quiet time to covertly develop advanced capabilities. measuringen you are north korean's capabilities and intentions you have to think testing. they stopped i think that is for diplomatic and political services. reporting has suggested that they continue to do all of these and advance.

on why we haven't been talking about this, i think human rights is integrated way into u.s. butoach to north korea depending on the year and season, it waxes and wanes. the sequence of when to bring up human right is something that is negotiable and flexible. diplomacye mood of and the fear of offending kim and smashing this very fragile mood of engagement -- i think it is misguided. kim jong-un is not a bubble boy who is going to die if we talk about human rights or raise those issues. say we haveument to to talk about engagement and continue with diplomacy. yes, of course we should, at the

same people advocate not talking about human rights and not pressing kim are talking about testing kim. when you are testing somebody, you want to make sure it is a real test and be sure you are not grading on a curve. human rights should be part of the discussion because to be really able to test somebody's good intentions, you have to make it more difficult than showing up to the olympics and rolling out the red carpet for minor concessions that we don't really question. >> dave maxwell, foundation for defense of democracies. pointkeaways and talking

that are emphasized. human rights is a national security issue that we should all emphasize. you cannot have maximum pressure if you don't include human rights. we should all take that away. nothing into the future i would like to ask -- i know olivia has worked on this and maybe the others have. south korea not focusing on human rights -- and i would like to say we can't want more human rights than south korea. we do have a responsibility as well. if you can speculate that if south korea doesn't focus around human rights, when unification occurs, what do you think the impact will be on in the cream people in the north? if no one has protected their rights? i think it is worth thinking about. for many years i have

been wanting to write a paper that talks about humanitarian and human rights engagement and contingency planning, which is a sensitive subject in south korea and the u.s. to some extent. i have been amazed in conversations with various folks that i have been repeatedly told there isn't any major plan on humanitarian issues and human rights engagement when it comes to these issues. that really shocks me in large part because you already have roughly 30,000 north korean refugees and south korea today. they form a test case at least for how assimilation and the process is going and a means by we can have lessons learned. it is so important to be planning for that, even in the midst of what seems like increasingly warming relations with north korea. i also wanted to pick up about

maximum pressure and its connection to human rights issues. overlooked is is that in the north korean sanctions act, they have tied together the sanctions that are specifically issued under those authorities to human rights issues. says, administration ever well, we can lift all of the sanctions as soon as north korea the nuclear rises, that is -- denuclearizes, that is false. you cannot lift the sanctions unless the prison camps are closed. our legislation is pushing us in having theon of sanctions tied with prison can't stand nuclear. the trailer that president

trump showed kim jong-un, i still believe it was made by the south koreans. they make a trailer for everything. ofy have a interesting way showing a rapidly developing north korea. that would be impossible without progress on human rights. there is no private property in north korea. human rights, labor rights are not observed. in order to join the world bank, north korea would have to improve its human rights record and reduce its military spender church and collect its national statistical data. first and foremost, they would have to get serious about human rights. development devoid of human

rights is utterly impossible. the two issues cannot be divorced. kimrights is utterly impossible. the two issues cannot be divorced. kim jong-un asked understand that denuclearize azation is an important stepping stone. is whatdevelopment north korea is after, they will need comprehensive economic social -- and political reform. human rights is an important part of that. unificationhe issue, the question jumping off what greg has said is what kind of korea do you want to see? do you want to see a unified policies are groups that are critical of government do yous are silenced want to see a korea that you are

so afraid of offending your leader because he is so afraid of criticism. a unifiedalk about korea, you have to talk about what your vision for that korea is. are we going to follow the south korea about following the protests and it is about an awakening of the political consciousness and freedom. i think the course that we are on now seems to suggest that kim is too sensitive and that we can't offend him. aboutk when you talk unification, you have to think about what that vision is. dan: in answer to the it wouldon question,

be a north korean defector living in south korea. speaking with my friends about this question, at the time you i asked her korea before she left in the 1990's, did north korea still believe south korea was economically worse? that they were a puppet regime? that while the people were good and naive. i asked her, at that point when you knew that south korea was poor then you, did you want unification? and she said yes. we realize there are brothers and sisters and ultimately we need to be one country. contrastere is a stark despite how south korea was doing, wanted unification compared to the current south korean context.

for number of reasons they don't want unification because of the cost of restructuring. is other point i would raise if this is not done well i'm a we may see -- done well, we may lines. extreme it is ultimately about which side were you on in the 1987 democracy movement. were you with the conservatives and with the ones that are -- ok, they help us -- help us with our economy. ofare you on the side democracy and liberalize asian against the oppressors -- liberalization against the oppressors? not sharing of use, we may see a more extreme divide in the future.

>> i am an intern at heritage. i want 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 is also friends with donald trump? is he going to be tapped in negotiations at all? olivia: i don't think he will play a role in negotiations and i think he was unlikely to be the one to get kim jong-un to the table. we need to give credit to kim jong-u moon the credit. that was the critical juncture turning point in getting

negotiations started and also what cap negotiations going. i also think with dennis rodman in the friendship of the two, you not met with the president of mongolia, he had not met with eric schmidt who visited with his daughter who was the chairman of google at the time. 2018, the situation has drastically changed in light of the multiple summit meetings that have happened this year with our own president and president moon and the chinese jinping.i defectors were telling us there might be an opportunity to see some light between kim jong-un and his senior leadership. i think his comfort level has increased dramatically this year, and i also think his legitimacy in the eyes of his

own senior leadership has also been enhanced. perhaps dennis rodman played a great role as an entertainer at the time, but that is about it, no further role. >> john arnold. i would like to go to more solid sports. in the past winter olympics, south korea became a blended team with a couple players coming from the north, and they were coached by an american coach out of minnesota. going forward, there is contemplation between south korea and north korea forming a combined did for an olympic games -- bid for an epic games. in the big chess match, where does solid sports and the movement fit in all this, especially since it is talked so much about human rights and

sense of fair play? year, whenlier this --th korea was around to allowed to participate, i worked a piece about why north korea should not have been able to participate. the olympics, in many ways, were a significant almost negotiating gift to north korea that i think -- because they have a nuclear weapons and so programs. they have not been testing as much recently, the fact that they still exist to me means they probably should not have been allowed to participate in the olympics. i think it would be unwise for south korea in north korea to submit a joint bid. it grants undue legitimacy to a

regime that does not merit that type of international recognition. the optimist might also say that perhaps by throwing in a joint bid, this might create incentives for the north korean regime to address those series human rights issues. olivia, i am in full agreement with you, south korean athletes at the ski resort was built with forced labor. north korean soldiers build it according to the international labor organization. that is forced labor. children were engaged in campaigns in snow removal and operations at the ski resort. that has nothing to do with the olympic spirit, it runs counter to the olympic spirit. south korean athletes not

allowed whether patches. only one of the members of the south korean delegation that meeting to the summit wore a south korean flag lapel pin, and that was not other than the vice chair. serious humany rights concerns and human rights at thecrificed for th limpets. olympics. the leaders sister is on the list of sanctioned individuals individual by the state department for a simple reason. she is a senior official of the propaganda department and in that position, she is responsible for punishing those seeking to access information from the outside world. north korean people have been

killed and sent to camps and political prison camps. an exception was granted, and i have 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 is not clear whether this was a second extension or whether the is in a gray zone and exemption is indefinite. certainly, if there is talk ,bout a joint olympic bid president moon's advisers must understand that human rights must be part of the equation. olivia: i think the thing about the olympics and talk about sanctions and exemptions, what value are the sanctions if you can just look away when the limits are on or when there is a political need? i think the undercut a

sanctions regime. in talking about the olympics, guess who is having the next olympics? it is tokyo. they were a stalwart opponent of engaging with north korea without any significant concessions. i am highly doubtful tokyo would roll out the red carpet for advanced teams. remember when the head 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 advanced teams or two athletes, even if south korea and north korea were to have a combined olympics team. and i also point out

would suspect that one of the reasons why president moon was it with northng korea in january was that they had a hard time selling tickets. leverage thats a could be used against tokyo. north korea is not a fan of abe and japanr o continuing to poke on the abductions issue for continuing to expose north korea's ship to ship transfers and violations of the sanctions. i would fully anticipate your korea using all of their tools of coercion, including cyber, to cast doubt on the safety of the olympics in an effort to use that as leverage against prime minister abe and use that as a way to punish abe and tokyo if

it came to that ve. that is something to watch for -- how muchwhether can pyongyang use it to see how much they can test the u.s.-japan relationship and the japan-south korea relationship and the trilateral relationship? dan: it is ironic because the olympics -- there is a stark contrast. in the previous olympics, north korean members were invited to sit with the south korean team. were korean team and there

discussions for the women's hockey team. they brought north korean players into the team. there was a great debate in south korea whether this was right or whether it made the .eam better essentially, these players have played all their lives to win a seat on the team and then there is a set number of teams and whether that was fairness. one of the point i would make is i would hate for north korea using the olympics in order to enhance the identity part. the criticism against them, once you get a north and south korean team coming together on a combined flagn fried and -- korean and you see them celebrate in together, that dries up fervor within south korea to imagine what a unified peninsula might look like.

if you smoke away the rough edges, every time that happens there is less attention on the precarious situation in north korea and more on the positive aspects. >> the panel has discussed the abusestween human rights and the regime posing legitimacy 's legitimacy. if the prison camp's are power,al to the regime's why would they make concessions? jung: i would ask that same question of the nuclear programs. that is why i say human rights violations in nuclear weapons

are two pillars for the regime. to just look at the wmd program and not looking at the second pillar that reinforces the weapons program, i think would be shooting ourselves in the foot before we get out of the gate. olivia: i think that north korea needs to be told for their needs a conversation that there can be a different north korea and it does not have territory withis nuclear weapons and prison camps and missile programs. it does not have to state in in thatce -- stay space. some of the more optimistic views of the singapore summit didd be when kim jong-un get to walk around in singapore and he did see what it is like

re and maybe it would have an appeal. i think it is a very difficult question, but i do not think it is one he has the right to ask. isresponsible actor that recognized in the international imprisonn continue to individuals in political prison camps. the reason why we have the nuclear negotiations is you cannot continue to have it exist in that way and will take a lot of negotiation and it is the million-dollar question. did you have your hand up i am an intern at 38 north. how you areing

talking about the influence of regional actors. he mentioned japan and the role they could play in human rights negotiations. i noticed we were not mentioning anything about china, and i was wondering what role you think china could have in human rights negotiations and potentially pushing this agenda or, are the talks between xi jinping and kim jong-un might have been pushing human rights negotiations off of the table? i was wondering what your panel thoughts would be on that. the day china supports efforts to address north korean human rights with the u.n. will be a wonderful day in everybody's lives. as one who is often on the frontlines of the u.n., i can tell you for sure that china

leads efforts to block civil society from participating in the process. how do i know this? our organization received human status the spring. spring.nd status this we all this to ambassador nikki haley and others. the way this is done that china, russia, and other beacons of democracy control the ngo committee. that is the gatekeeper. if you are human rights ngo addressing only human rights, they keep you on hold for 5, 10, 15 years. the same -- send you questions every six months. ambassador haley broadus to a -- brought us to a vote . despiteembers and

chinese opposition and despite opposition by others, we managed to win by a landslide. atis very obvious that china the u.n. is behind efforts to , note real civil society totalitarian government controlled organizations masquerading as civil societies and ngos. having seen this on the front line, i am very skeptical, but one never knows. let's see. china should be one of the focal points of human rights abuses because they have consistently repatriated north korean refugees back to north korea. if you have not seen it already, the office for international religious freedom put out a very short-four-minute clip i north and one 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 without proper medical proceedings. she was forced to renounce her christian faith and faced severe punishment for mere possession of a bible. these are the types of stories that are typical of north korean refugees who are being repatriated by china on a daily basis. i think the u.s. should continue to be very critical and impressing on china that the human rights offenses that they aid in a bed with china. i have two quick thoughts. chineseew, from the perspective, anything that distracts -- disrupts unification of the peninsula is

not for them. the north korean regime as long as they retain the buffer, they are mostly happy. how do we get china interested in the issue? you are looking at the future for scope and you see one day for north korea's leadership and there will be a criminal tribunal, there is a domestic of aiding and abetting and international crime spear china -- crimes. china, now is the time or you may be implicated. or you say china, you want to be responsible to take control and you can be a leader on rights. to giveot asking you the refugees food and shelter, just let them pastor your country to -- passed through

your country to another. you can help us with your leadership and security measures. olivia: last question. i'm an intern on capitol hill. this is directed to anyone on the panel. , i believe the wall street journal reported that president something -- said something on the lines that he loved him or felt in love with and something quite shocking and disturbing to anyone who takes north korean human rights seriously and takes north korean threats seriously. my question is, what does that

mean for u.s. negotiations with the u.s. pushing human rights concern in north korea and having a president who seems to be oblivious to the sheer evil of the north korean regime? love is a compensated thing. [laughter] moon in theident speech he gave the evening atore his speech at may 1, may day stadium. he said chairman kim and i crossed the demarcation line hand-in-hand like two affectionate lovers. i am not kidding you, that was the wording used. course, i would always focus more on the things president trump does rather than the things he says. an event onalready

the 24th last week. our keynote speaker gave introductory and concluding remarks was none other than the deputy permanent representative of the united states to the united nations, ambassador cohen. under the current circumstances such aman rights is sensitive issue, i think that is a good sign moving ahead. a very good sign human rights continues to be on our radar screen, usa, and a good sign we will continue to play a hopefully positive role at the u.n. and beyond. two fingers. one, i would agree with you that may be compared to other negotiations with north korea, this is really top-down. usually indications -- any types of serious negotiations, or a

kraftwerk for weeks and sometimes months to hammer out the nitty-gritty details and when summit meters leap it's essentially sign on the bottom and maybe hash out more difficult issues. in this case, it has been mostly kudos towhich means president from forgetting us this far because we have never been able to get this far because there have not been senior executive talks. there is a real risk, what happens if negotiations fail? and president trump does have the full arsenal of the u.s. military at his fingertips? there is both an advantage and getting as far as we have, but also risk involved if things don't go the way we would like. >> any final words from our panelists before we close out? please join me in thanking the panelists. [applause]

and also, i would be remiss if i did not say this. my collie, angel, would probably kill me. if any of you would like to join our mailing list, there is a sign up on the desk. your- feel free to add email and grab any papers you are interested in. thank you again for joining us. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

announcer: we have more coverage coming up in just under half an hour when vermont senator bernie lawrence zupan in the first of two debates. at 2:30 eastern, we will be live with a panel discussion and the role of faith in modern democracy. the helsinki commission is hosting that event. tonight at 8:00 eastern, live coverage of the debate in 6th u.s. house district, andy barr debates amy degraff. watch it online at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. with eight days until the midterm election, c-span is your primary source for campaign 2018.