now, this isn't the average north korean because the average north korean does not have an atm card that they can take money out of the local citibank. this affects largely the elite and the leadership. the second thing i would mention with regard to these financial measures is that when the bush administration did them, they were largely a u.s. action where the united states was then going to other countries and regulatory agencies in it europe and elsewhere asking them to take certain actions. the big difference now is that a u.n. security council resolution that calls for the designation of certain entities for financial sanctions makes this much more of a multilateral effort and i think it becomes much easier to gain cooperation among other countries' regulatory agencies and banks. the second point that i want to make again addressing some of the questions in the earlier session is this whole question of the inspection regime. to me although we don't know everything about the u.n. security council resolution, to me what's most interesting is the effort, the very strong effort by the

north koreans always like that kind of attention. so that is the sort of thing that they would want very much. host: let me ask you to go back to 1999 and 2000. the north korean government, pyongyang did make some overtures to the clinton administration. they invited president clinton to travel to north korea. he did not go but secretary of madylin albright did go. what transpiped that's kind one step forward two steps back? guest: well, i think the bush administration came in and realized basically -- basically caught the north koreans cheating on some of their declaration that they gave to the clinton administration with regards to not the processing of plutonium but the processing of highly enriched uranium which is another pathway towards nuclear weapons. so the bush administration confronted the north koreans with that. and the north koreans pulled out of the nonproliferation treaty and a host of other obligations that they had signed up to. host: there are a lot of players in this, including china. are we speeding too much dipl

a south korean worker is still detained by the north koreans. what are your thoughts about the maintenance of the maintenance complex, and did you talk about president obama or whether any concerns from the americans about the industrial complex? >> north korea has been resisting, and they have reacted aggressively to the new un security council resolution which is quite expected. and of course, the north koreans may react by firing another round of missiles or taking actions. we can also expect that from them as well. however, north koreans must understand that they will not be able to gain compensation by provoking a crisis. this has been a pattern in the past, but this will no longer be. the firm at u.s. korea cooperation and alliance will not allow that. and the recent security council resolution is not simply about words. it is about taking up follow-up action and vigorously taking up the resolution. it will make sure we fully implement the un security resolution. like i said, the north koreans must understand that their past behavior will

cha, dimensions in 2005 other countries voluntarily froze north korean assets. we had a similar situation in macau. that is important because you point out if in fact we had a security council resolution, and clearly a multinational, international idea here, that the sanctions at least through that forum would be much more comprehensive and complete. and the affected leadership, which is important. i suspect we can make some headway with some of the followers, but the leadership is what counts unfortunately at this particular moment, even thinking about negotiations. i am really struck by the fact that after the negotiations we have been involved then, after pyongyang is disassembled then so forth this reversal is really striking and then beyond that, nuclear tests, missiles flying over japan and all the rest of it. we can speculate whether they are having an internal problem politically but the effects on the rest of the world are very severe, and that would be in favor really of moving very strongly toward the economic sanctions route, but i think that may be

that has been the north koreans. >> would be bilateral or multilateral? >> the president and secretary made it clear that we are prepared to engage bilaterally, and within a multilateral context, we are prepared to be quite ambitious in both areas. >> in the past, those talks were focused on the nuclear issue. would there be a willingness to be more diverse with respect to the topics that might be discussed? >> all topics would be open. the nuclear issue remains the core from our point of view and our partners in the 6 party process remain in the process. my belief is to deal in the long term with the problems north korea poses requires that we broaden our focus beyond the nuclear question alone. north korea is a very weak steak despite its boisterous activities in the area of nuclear technology and missiles. in order to achieve the stability in northeast asia that is important for not only the countries of that region but the country's, including the united states, we have to address how we can help north korea achieve greater economic success. as long a

north korean relationship in any respect? and i ask you about employment across the border. in my home state of mississippi we've entertained medical doctors from north korea, and i don't know if that accomplish this much, except for an exchange of ideas we think those are too small steps we are taking. is there any reason to be encouraged at all by some other things that are going on? >> i think, senator, one of our strengths as a nation is our willingness to engage in humanitarian activities aside from political considerations. so, i would applaud the efforts of any american entity to try to bring about some improvement in the very desperate condition of the north korean people. that is the basis on which the u.s. government has provided food aid the last several years and it's the basis which a number of private non-governmental organizations have operated within north korea and we have never and i don't believe we will in the future try to use these activities as leverage for political ends. we deal with north korea on official government to government basis but personal

/north korean relationship in any respect? and i ask you about employment across the border. in my home state of mississippi, we have entertained medical doctors from north korea. i don't know if that accomplisheds much except for an exchange of ideas. those are 2 small steps. is there any reason for us to be encouraged by some other things that are going on? >> one of our strengths as a nation is our willingness to engage in humanitarian activities aside from political considerations. i would applaud the experts -- efforts of any american entity to try to bring about some improvements in the very desperate condition of the north korean people. it is the basis on which a number of private non governmental organizations have operated within north korea. we have never, i don't believe we ever will in the future, try to use these activities as leverage for political ends. we deal with north korea on a government to government basis. i personally, i can speak for everyone in the administration and in the u.s. bureaucracy, this willingness to engage in humanitarian activities is o

says a professor of north korean studies in seoul. he noted that a part in can only be issued after conviction. good morning, on air independent line. caller: yes, i believe the president obama should take immediate, firm action. but do it in a way where we can get support from around the world. he should first go to the united nations and ask them to intervene. if not, it is simple and can be done by executive order. anyone who does business with north korea this not do business with the united states. very plain, simple, cut and dried. host: two stories this morning. the conviction of the journalists and the comments from secretary clinton yesterday, concerning putting the north koreans back on the terrorism list. in the piece this morning, while mr. obama is willing to reopen the six-party talks that mr. bush began, the other participants -- he has no intention of offering new incentives to give the north to fulfil agreements previously. all these agreements were recently renounced by north korea. chicago is next. caller: good morn

also, the north koreans have been detaining a south korean worker. they have not given us any explanation. there are also two american journalists being currently held by the north koreans. i'm urging the north koreans to release not only the two american journalists but also the south korean worker without any conditions to release them as soon as possible. the international community is asking the north koreans to take that path. once again, and urging on the strongest terms that they release the two american journalists as well as the korean worker being held. >> thank you, mr. president. i was hoping you would consent to letting us as a couple of questions. first, there's a new policy on intercepting north korean ships at sea. if you could say anything about that. and are you concerned that could provoke north korea to higher levels? >> this is not simply a way u.s. policy. this is an international policy. this is part of what the security council resolution calls for, is the integration of arms shipments. how that will be implemented, how we app

weeks after the north korean test, the u.n. security council has passed a waterdown -- watereddown resolution. just after the previous admission did -- administration did, this action will be touted, it will be touted by our spokesman, as an effective response. we have heard this story before, unfortunately. it is not an effective response, and it is not because, frankly, with the lowest common denominator u.n. resolution approach where china and russia get that opportunity to water down that resolution so that it won't be enforced effectively, frankly we come to a conclusion. and the conclusion for me and i follow this issue -- followed this issue for many years is that the united states can achieve an awful lot by deploying measures to further undercut north korea's economy and the target -- and target its proliferation activities. we have found that the source of doing that before, we should do it again. past attempts to squeeze the wallet of north korea have proven very successful. when banks from across asia refuse to do b

a point not lost on the north korean officials. given recent provocations have prospects for more concerted chinese actions been improved. facilitate the broadest possible basis moving ahead i encouraged the obama administration officials two actively consult with congress as they proceeded in developing a comprehensive north korea's strategy. i am joined with chairman kerry in welcoming our ambassador, nancy lindborg, and leon sigal today's hearing. we look for to there in size and hopefully their inspiration. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator lugar, as always they are thoughtful and important questions to ask and hopefully we will get the answers to in the course of the afternoon. let me say we do have two panels today and we will try to get everybody to hear at inappropriate manner. in victor cha is in the former asia director at the national security council and professor at georgetown university. evans riviera is the president of the three a society and former deputy assistant of east asian pacific affair

concerned on humanitarian grounds about the condition of the north korean population. it is not good. now the country is covered by such secrecy that one doesn't know exactly what the condition of all the population might be, but it is clear that diet is inadequate in terms of caloric intake and if they have a harvest that, for example, is not as good as a should be or as they hope it would be then the conditions deteriorated even further so we and our partners and other countries in the u.n. security council are very conscious of the need not to further punish the people of north korea and that is very much one of the things that guys us as we try to shape a policy that will respond to what the north korean government is doing and give us some possibility of improvement. >> thank you. i note the president -- senator demint and in the absence of the chair i recognize him for his round of questions. >> thank you. senator lugar. ambassador bosworth, thank you for being here peridot and would like to have some questions specifically about the designation as states sponsor

>> well, as you suggest north korean economy is in a desperate condition. it has been steadily going downhill since probably the early 1990's and its industrial output for example is now only a fraction of what it my been in the late-1980s. is agricultural output is also been very difficult, in adequate to meet the needs of its own citizenry and number three has depended heavily on international contributions of foodstuffs to feed its own people. now, as you are aware, north korea about two months ago asked our humanitarian agencies, and organizations who were there to provide and deliver the food that the u.s. had agreed to and make available more asked to leave by the north american authorities so that food, that quantity of food is no longer being provided. we are concerned on humanitarian grounds about the condition of the north korean population. it is not good. now the country is covered by such secrecy that one doesn't know exactly what the condition of all the population might be, but it is clear that diet is inadequate in terms of caloric intake an

a point not lost on north korean officials. given recent provocations have prospects for more concerted chinese actions have been improved. the broadest possible base to move ahead, i encourage the obama administration officials to actively consult with congress as they proceed in developing a comprehensive north korea strategy. i join with chairman kerry in welcoming our ambassador stephen bosworth and the others to today's hearing. we look forward to their insights and hopefully their inspiration. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator lugar. those are as always thoughtful and important questions you've asked and i'm confident we'll get the answers to them in the course of the afternoon. let me do say that we have two panels today and we'll try to get everybody through here in an appropriate manner. victor chai is the former asia director at the national security council and he's a professor at georgetown university. leon seigel is a professor at the social science research council in new york and author of

north korean behavior is inexcusable. what they're doing now, i don't have to tell you is harmful to them, harmful to us. above all, harmful to our alliance relationships down the road, which is a very important reason why we have to get back to this negotiating table and see what we can get. >> the flip side of that question, mr. cha, sort of goes to your proposal with respect to redesignating them as a terrorist country. first of all, are there not specific legal standards that apply to that designation? and do not these steps he's taken fall outside of them but equally importantly, wouldn't that designation at this moment in time potentially just escalate the ladder of tit for tat and perhaps undermine the ability to get to the table where you need to do the constructive work for diplomacy? >> well -- >> if it applies. >> right. well, in terms of getting back to the table, i think everybody wants to get back to the table. the only way we get closer to anything resembling a freeze and a cap on the capabilities is throug

i think many of you know that the resolution that was crafted on north korean sanctions passed unanimously a short while ago from the united nations, and ambassador rice will talk to us a little bit about that and answer a few of your questions. >> thanks very much, robert. afternoon, everybody. we are very pleased that the security council just, within the last 1.5 hours, passed unanimously a brand-new resolution imposing tough, new, meaningful sanctions on north korea in response to its nuclear tests and its other provocative behavior, including recent missile activity. this resolution is unprecedented. it is innovative. and it will cause the sanctions regime on north korea to be strengthened in five critical areas. first, the resolution begins by condemning north korean actions in the strongest possible terms and demands north korea halted a all nuclear activity, halt all missile activity and returned to the negotiation table. with the prerogative and threatening behavior of north korea, these five measures include the following, and i would like the deputy to -- i would like to go thro

we're not going to get into a tit-for-tat reaction to every north korean provocative act. they know what they need to do to uphold their international obligations. we are intent on ensuring this tough regime is fully implemented. and correct it sounds like you said that there is no legal authority -- >> it sounds like you said there is no legal authority in the resolution to force a vessel back to port in the event that it does not submit to inspection. >> that is correct, there is not an authorization to use military force. >> do you wish that you had it? >> i think it is fair to say that we want, and we got a substantially enhanced inspection regime. there has never been before a regime with such clear-cut obligations and responsibilities for member states. it is a binding obligation for states to direct suspect vessels to port for mandatory inspection. obviously, as is the case in any instance, there are countries that gave something and got something. we feel we got a lot and we are pleased with this outcome >> when does it take effect? >> today. >> [inaudible] of all

that development aid was by diverted to the north korean dictatorship. now, unbelieveably, undp is returning to north korea with essentially no meaningful protections to prevent u.s. taxpayer dollars from again benefiting kim junge ill and his corrupt cronies. our -- kim jong il and his corrupt cronies. we have a collection agencies to retrieve over $7 million in u.s. taxpayer dollars mismanaged by undp in afghanistan. we might never know about undp's corruption and mismanagement without the help of brave whistleblowers. unfortunately, whistleblowers have few protections at the u.n. and the undp has reportedly retaliated against the number of them, including the one who exposed their operations in north korea. mr. chairman, this bill should do more in safeguarding our constituents' hard-earned dollars. nowhere which u.n. failures, which undermine u.s. interests, are clearer than with respect to the united nations relief and works agency, unra. unra has a humanitarian mandate to help refugees but it continues to compromise its mandate and our u.s. tax dol

. >> a think the north koreans announced the trial is starting. >> de and know that that is the truth? >> i do not know. >> you have not been able to independently confirmed that it has started? >> i will take the question of what our understanding is about the status of the trial. >> de know what the charges are -- do you know what the charges are? >> i will take that question as well. >> you have any more informational whether these girls have a defense lawyer. >> they do have defense lawyers. >> are they providing any kind of read out to the swedish embassy? >> as you know, there has been some communication from the two journalists back to their families. >> one last thing on speculation concerning a visit -- >> i have no information on that. >> i wanted to follow up if you could say anything more about their welfare? >> when the swedish ambassador met with them on monday, they found them to be, under the circumstances, reasonably good. >> when the secretary visited lemon on it -- let in on, she said she would visit in june. [unintelligible] >> the lebanese have an election coming

korean ships are there other navies now shadowing other north korean ships? >> i didn't say shadowing. i think they take those responsibilities hopefully as seriously as we do. >> so are they watching other ships? >> i can't speak to what they are doing other than to say there are other navies out there that cr as concerned. the idea is that this is somehow being made a u.s. responsibility. the world spoke through the united nations. also this collective concern and there are now collective authorities given to us and we hope it doesn't just fall off on us to respond to this but in the sense that the security council resolution was much more comp hence i have that than that. there are new economic restrictions and sanctions and financial restrictions and sanction it's, so i would pursue y'all to pursue some of those angles as well, but there are other components to this other than just the military one. >> geoff? >> it's been pretty widely reported that the president signed off on this new fiber sub command? >> yes. >> can you talk to us about what exactly he

we never made peace with the north koreans, we made an armistice. we decided that we would time out, no more war. they went on their side of the 38th parallel and the south koreans went on our side of the 38th parallel. since that time, one of the great,my rack louse transformations of an area has taken place in south korea. now when you go to south korea, it's a prosperous nation. it has a functioning democratic government. and the south korean -- korean -- the south koreans have a lot of bragging rights, a lot to be proud of. the north koreans stayed in their same soviet socialist republic a communist regime and basically, with the opings -- exception of building a gigantic army, they accomplished nothing since 1954 or 1956. and -- except to stir up will the of -- a lot of trouble in that area and to develop nuclear weapons and a missile system. now, there are some that think the north koreans are just in this business to sell the weapons to other people to give them something they can trade because they basically are practically without trade res

it is the north korean regime that commits real grave crimes against millions of north koreans every day. president obama himself must make it clear that this action cannot stand. now is the time for urgent action. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. himes: mr. speaker, it is-t has become amply clear to all americans, north, south, republican, democrat, rich, poor that our health care system is not just a moral embarrassment to the greatest country on earth but a severe economic liability. our auto companies and our corporations stagger under cost increases. our small businesses choose between covering their employees or taking a step towards insolvency. of course health care costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy for american families. we cannot fix this economy without reforming our health care system. we cannot be fiscally responsible without addressing the stunning economic wliblets that we have ass

now, it's common knowledge in testimony last week in the senate that the north koreans and iranians were working together on nuclear, on the development of or nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. so north korea does pose a threat in their proliferation of nuclear weapons. the israelis had to attack and destroy a facility in syria that was being built with the assistance of the north koreans. some very serious situations in north korea. now the u.n. resolution is inadequate is the kind of description i can give you because they say that they, that they, we cannot board one of these ships but follow it into port and expect the people who run the port to have the inspection. well, this ship that we're talking about or at least one of 'em is headed for myanmar. they're not going to inspect the ship and among other things it could refuel and head towards iran or head towards another unfriendly country. so we should in the interest of national security if we know -- and we have intelligence capability -- that a north korean ship is carrying technology or weapons or systems that could endang

navy would take working with other partners against north korean ships? what other vessels might need to be sent there? 11 this began? >> i don't know that i'm going to get into those kind of operational details and i don't know that it requires frankly initial steps to be sent to the region. i think that we have a host of assets in the pacific, in and around the waters that north korean ships which favors dad -- but i think fundamentally, gordon, i think our authorities and responsibilities when the united nations survey council resolution 1874 are clear and we have the resources and assets in the region that would allow us to perform our duties under that and so we continue to as we have for quite some time to monitor north korean shipments and should as the security council resolution calls for should reasonable grounds -- should there be reasonable grounds to believe that one of those ships is carrying banned cargo we have the authority is under the security council resolution to take action. >> from a practical standpoint of the ships in port reducin

. >> is there any information to suggest there might be disagreements within the north korean government regarding their nuclear policy? >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you senator shaheen guss senator corker, i know he has indicated to me he is not going to ask questions so this action follows if nation's recent nuclear underground test and subsequent missile testifieses in violation of previous security council resolutions. following the u.n. meeting, several members of the council spokes with reporters. this is about 25 minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. and today the security council has both spoken and acted decisively and clearly and unanimously. and through the security council the international community has made absolutely clear its determination to tackle the illegal provocative and dangerous activities of the north korean government. the resolution contains some significant tough measures with that objective in mind. it substantially expands and strengthens the arms embarg on north korea including the absolute ban on any arms exports from north korea, w

north korean regime preferring they would not do them. this is a regime that kidnaps actors and civilians. they kidnapped japanese to find good teachers of did -- japanese culture. they kidnapped filmmakers. so this is a regime that carry its our currency, deals drugs, uses diplomatic service to sneak into other countries. the seizure of these journalists is not the greatest abuse of this regime. host: rockville, maryland. democrat line. you are on with john sherman. caller: thank you so much. i'm basically calling in response to the myriad issues facing the current administration right now. i did not see our foreign policy to change it all that much. i am by no means an anti-semitic person. but i would like to say, however, that there seems to be a certain dysfunctional society as a whole. our finance rules need to be reformed. too many senators are beholden to to any interest. -- too many interests. guest: when you start saying that u.s. corporations are controlled by israel, you seem to be using as real as a code for jewish people. you

as we speak, there is a destroyer named after my father and grandfather that is tracking a north korean vessel. there is published information that it may be carrying weapons or technology that our nuclear in nature. -- that our nuclear in nature. it is common knowledge that the north koreans and iranians were working together on nuclear -- the development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. so, north korea does pose a threat in their proliferation of nuclear weapons. the israelis had to attack and destroy a facility in syria that was being built with the assistance of the north koreans. it is a very serious situation in north korea. now, the u.n. resolution is inadequate as the kind of description i can give you because they say, we cannot afford one of these ships, but follow it into port and expect the people that are in the port to have the inspection. well, this sport is headed for me and more. me and more is not going to -- for myanmar. myanmar is not going to inspect this ship. we should, and the interest of national security if we know, and we have intelligence capability

sick of responding to a north korean provocations by making concessions that get you back to the status quo ante only to see this all unfold again, so while we are pursuing diplomacy and well we are pursuing economic sanctions, we are simultaneously working with our allies, the japanese, the koreans, and the chinese, others who may be amenable to this on trying to devise additional defensive measures, prudent planning in the event that the north continues down this reckless path. yes. >> in this regard, is the pentagon exploring ways to forbid north korea, for bid north korea sea and air shipments suspected of caring-- >> eyes saw secretary clinton made that point this weekend. all i would say to that is we are looking at a number of options. in fact i have not, you were with us last week daphne and you heard this question came up after our meetings with the trilateral with the koreans and japanese. we were asked, what specifically is the secretary talking about when he says additional defensive measures? the truth is he did not have anything specifically in mind. we are in the process

the north koreans continue to make statements bellicose statements, threatening different actions many times, what they threaten they eventually do and that further alien natures north korea from the rest of the world and i think that has helped the world take unified action, strong steps to ensure that we are taking all necessary action to ensure that there is not the ability for north korea to export weapons or export material that would lead to proliferation. that's been our focus. >> the president said when he was asked in the interview, taking contingencies does not mean a military response necessarily. but what -- how else can one understand that? what else could "contingencies"mean? >> what the previous referred to by taking all necessary steps to deal with whatever threat comes out on the north korea. >> what does that mean? >> what does that mean? i think i'd refer you to what secretary gates said last week about moving different systems out into the pacific in order to ensure the protection of the united states of america. i'm speaking more about the sort of outer edge of the

pacific commander includes conversation on the north korean missile testing at 5:30 eastern on c-span. >> file sharing has wreaked havoc on our business. >> tonight on "the communicators" copyright policy with the chairman of universal music publishing group. >> one of the goal is to have the isp's take more responsibility of the service they are providing and make sure they're not just providing an entree into intellectual property for free. >> the chairman of universal music publishing group tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> now more from this morning's "washington journal." peter brooks is a national security fellow at the heritage foundation, there is a report looking at the commission of prevention of weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism. this commission was put together in 2008. guest: i am not a member of this commission. it is -- headed by bob graham. in the standard commission has been extended. they have been extended for a few more months. host: they deliver their report to president bush last -- late last year and testify befo

>> i hesitate for a number of reasons to speak for the north koreans. >> [unintelligible] >> let me characterized some things about north korea. they have stated a lot of bellicose things. that threatens to do certain things. a lot of times with a threat to do, they follow up on. but this administration, whether it is through sanctions and monitoring of north korea potentially moving any sort of arms out of their country through proliferation, what ambassador rice negotiated in the past at the un security council is part of it. it is also a stepped-up role in ensuring that we're cutting off any potentially harmful financing. in this case, we have been fairly explicit with the north koreans about the responsibilities they entered into that we expect them to live up to. i think today's action demonstrates the seriousness of what we intend to do to address it. >> was any consideration given to the kind of reactions -- >> obviously, a lot of stuff is factored in. you can assume that we have taken that into account and decided the best thing going forward or the actions taken today and t

. >> how do you see that of the north koreans asking for the waters to be cleared to the east coast. are you concerned? >> do you mean in terms of a potential missile launch? the secretary acknowledged in manila, that they are preparing for another missile launch. what kind or range is not clear at this point. so that, you know, that would yet be another sign that the north is going to undertake another provocative action, that would of course, not help diffuse or de-escalate an already intense situation. >> is the goal of these talks that the defense officials were involved in, is that absolutely to prevent north korea to get nuclear weapons and not to deliver. or planning to respond if they do get nuclear weapons. >> are you talking about the steinberg? i think that effort and you should talk to the state department for more specifics, it was their trip that we are participants in. and that effort was primarily focused at a high level delegation visiting capitals in the region trying to work out the way ahead, first and foremost, economically and diplomatically multi-lateral sancti

resupply to the korean and chinese armies were unimpeded, the north koreans were not at all forced to go to the peace table which is another thing you will see over and over again. at the same time, you saw from the budget charts that there is a huge spike in spending particularly for the air force, the air force diverted all that money, spend none of it on korea and diverted it into nuclear bombers, couldn't possibly be used, took the money and ran for their own hobbies. they cut our fighters to a thousand. antiquated fighters were unsuited for the mission. they got decimated. we kept feeding from our inventory. when we ran out of them, we force the f 4 down the secretary's for wrote. quickly converted to a strategic bomber, lost 445 of those, so we had a thousand airplanes doing strategic bombing, you will see the results in a moment. in the south, there was a support efforts. the ancient propeller airplane it did so well for the navy and korea, we only had 50 of them, but they did brilliant work. so you see it again. all we did was stiffen the resistance of the north. coach seamen'

i think as we have said many times before, the increasingly -- the reactions of the north koreans in alienating themselves from their own responsibilities and isolating themselves from the rest of the world, that they are going alone down a different path. the president believes there is a different way for north korea, and i think what he discussed today with president lee was a continuation of the strong relationship that we have with the republic of korea. and the strong international reactions and steps that have been taken to coordinate that responds it could take some extremely tough actions, all of what ambassador rice outlined just last week. i remember not long after the first launch in late march and early april, there was some vast skepticism that tough actions and steps could be agreed upon by a group of five nations, a group of 15 nations. not only would be agreed upon, but they are now being implemented in how is the president getting information regarding iran right now? is he just reacting to news reports that everybody is saying? you guys have some intelligence on th

government has been watching several north korean vessels right now, which are possibly carrying weapons. are you going to keep watching the vessel continuously? until when? second, do we have any expectation when the north korean launch will be, and what we are -- what we should be ready for? thank you. >> sure. our response is and is it 6:00? -- are we not supposed to finish at 6:00? [laughter] north korea as activities are disturbing and unsettling for all of us. as far as shipment of proscribed cargo, i cannot comment on operational matters like that with intelligence matters. our president has said he is satisfied that the pacific command and the military of the united states is well prepared to execute whatever did mention he gives us. you can read whatever or not you choose to read into that. as far as the launch from north korea, the recent launch following by a couple of years the july of 2006 launched, the secretary of defense just said a couple of weeks ago -- i think he said it very well, we are prepared to protect americans and american property and american citizens and ame

you have any further information on what indications you're getting about the north korean plans for this missile launch? the you have any more specific concerns about potential of a missile? >> we have seen this movie, where we are not sure there should be a sequel. all we know at this point is, if the north koreans fire of another missile, it will be a mistake. >> obviously, you do not want to see a missile go off if there is a danger that it will hit someone or something. >> their aim is not exactly been their strong suit so far. >> doesn't really affect your diplomatic corps s -- it does it really affects your diplomatic course? >> what goes up must comeow

north korean ships? if so, are you sensing more of a willingness particularly on the part of the chinese to monitor and interdict north korean ships? >> i will just say when i was in singapore, i had bilateral meetings with both my south korean and japanese counterparts, and then we had the first ever tri-bilateral meeting of the defense ministers of the three countries. our focus was on how we improve our defensive capabilities together in response to what is going on in north korea. i am not aware, i certainly have not had any communications with the chinese in terms of north korea. >> i have not, although i know admiral keating has engaged both japanese and south korea, and i am not aware of any contact with china. >> you correctly said in terms of pakistan, there was a ship after long time of paying lip service, pakistan takes the taliban as a threat. is there a shift in the way that the chinese view north korea and are more amenable to the thought that north korea is a problem for them as well, not

north koreans have a demonstrated once again that they are not prepared. they have tested a nuclear weapon, it looks like they are getting ready to test another mosul -- missile, as well. we have to make certain that north korea nor iran acquires these capabilities with nuclear weapons. i wish we had done more, but those are the problems that wiere passed on to the next administration, and we will do everything to support their efforts. >> as proof of the bush administration actions on the war of terror, you also report a lack of terror on u.s. soil since 2001 is part of your success. you criticized "the new york times" decision to publish information, the terrorist situation that said it can only help al qaeda. since it was repealed, the u.s. has since to sustain an attack, so following your logic, can we then say that the terrorist surveillance program did not need to not be public because there has been no attacks since? >> i am not sure i understand the question. [laughter] [applause] i will answer my version of your question. how is that? my complaint

the north koreans have been saying the opposite. we want nuclear-weapons, we are seeking nuclear weapons, and now we have nuclear weapons. that makes it much tougher to negotiate about an arrangement which includes nuclear weapons. the iranians are out of their seat, but maybe they are saying we are not building nuclear weapons, we don't have nuclear- weapons, our religion forbids us to have nuclear weapons. that provides a point of departure, saying to them, this is reassuring, but we have some legitimate doubts to question the degree of your commitment to these propositions. one might even be applied and say we have some reservations about your veracity, but let us use this as a point of departure anaiming at establishing a arrangements that give us reason to take these assertions as the truth. that then gets us into the discussion of what is still feasible in that regard. in fact, halting iranian enrichment is pretty much overdue, because they have advanced so far. the opportunity to negotiate with them have been wasted. perhaps

military is tracking a north korean ship. what are your options in terms of enforcing u.s. security council resolution 1874. are you prepared to board the ship at this time? >> without going into details, but we clearly intend to vigorously enforce the united nations security council resolution 1874 to include options, certainly a carrot -- a pale and queried. -- a hail and querry. if a vessel like this is a query and is not allow a permissive the search in port, then the country of that port is required to inspect the vessel and to also keep the united nations informed if a vessel like this would refuse to comply. but the united nations security council resolution does not include an option for the post boarding or noncompliant boarding. -- an option for opposed boarding or noncompliant boarding. if we have a vessel that we think is in noncompliance, that is a report that goes back to the united nations as well. >> what has made use suspicious of this ship? >> i will not go into any details at this point in time except to say it is very clear the resolution prohibits north

the north koreans say we pointed and seeking them and we have it so what are they going to do about it and then we have to decide are beginning to bribe them to get them off of it? or week and to pressure them to compel them, intimidate, who as going to be helpful and that is the situation. thank you. [applause] >> well, i think accommodation of clarity, candor, audacity and pratt of vision is what we look for from dr. brzezinski and i think that we all got what we were looking for today. in conclusion i would like to thank all of you for joining us today. there are still i think copies of the number of defects recent rand publications outside for those of you that haven't picked them up and in conclusion i would like to thank those that provide support for the organization of this event. ipod thank all the members of our middle least board including dr. brzezinski, who are in attendance today. and i would like to thank of terse on the rand staff who did all the work to make today's event possible. so i would like you to thank them as well. [applause] [inaudible conversations] ..

and secondly in north korea's icbm's do you have any expectation of when the north korean launch icbm and are you ready about it? thank you. >> sure. [laughter] >> aren't we supposed to finish at 6:00? please, this is a very serious situation. north korea's activities are very disturbing and unsettling to all of us. witnessing the united nations security council resolution. as far as shipment of proscribed cargo, i can't comment on operational matters like that or intelligence matters. our president has said he is satisfied that the pacific command, the military of the united states is well-prepared to execute whatever direction he give us. and you can read whatever or not you choose to read into that but that's where i'll have to leave it. as far as the launch from north korea, the recent launch following by a couple of years in july of 2006 launch, secretary of defense just said a couple of weeks ago -- i think he said it very well we're prepared to protect americans and american property and american citizens and american territories. we don't want to tip our hand too much. we want

korean test even when the international monitoring system is told where and when to look. yes, these are the measures the administration has chosen to spend its capital on. i urge the administration to look for areas to work with the congress, globalizing the none-lugar program, and -- nunn-lugar program, and strengthening our nuclear intelligence, and forensic capability just to name a few. the commission on the strategic posture led by two of our most esteemed experts on u.s. national security, has just completed more than a year-long review of the role that knock weapons play in our national security. the 12 commissioners have done what no one thought was possible. they found a bipartisan consensus, they presented their findings and recommendations to the president and the congress. and it now becomes our turn, the elected political leaders to take the fruit of the commission's labor and move forward on the necessary and long overdue steps the speakers have deemed necessary. regardless of party affiliation, in order to protect the american people. mr. president, finally

the north koreans have been saying the very opposite. we want nuclear weapons. we are seeking nuclear weapons, and in your face, taha, we have nuclear weapons. that makes it tough to negotiate about and of arrangement which excludes nuclear weapons. the iranians perhaps out of the seat but perhaps in part at least truthfully are saying we are not building nuclear weapons, we don't have nuclear weapons, our religion forbids us to have nuclear weapons. that provides a point of departure saying to them this is reassuring but we have some legitimate doubts to question the degree of your commitment of these propositions and what may even be more polite and say we have some reservations about your veracity but let us use this as a point of departure aiming at establishing the maffei arrangements that give a reason to take the assertions as the truth in the back and then gets us into the discussion but is still feasible in that regard. in fact, halting the iranian enrichment is now pretty much overdue because they have advanced so far on the alert and 80's to negotiate

>> well, i hesitate for any number of reasons to speak for the north koreans and what they may or may not -- >> speak to what the consideration was? >> well, let me do characterize some of what north korea. north korea has made some -- they've usually, they've, they've stated a lot of bellicose things. they've threatened to do certain things. a lot of times what they've threatened to do they follow up on doing. but this administration whether it is through sanctions and monitoring of north korea moving, potentially moving any sort of arms out of their country through proliferation what ambassador rice negotiated in past through the u.n. security council is part of it as well as a stepped-up role in insuring that we are cutting off any potentially harmful financing as in this case. again, we have, i think, been fairly explicit with the north koreans about what the responsibilities that they entered into that we expect them to live up to, and i think today's action demonstrates the seriousness of what we intend to do to address it. >> right. the question had to do, however, with any con