moved in a military coup a year later. north korea's released new pictures of its most recent missile test the ballistic missile was launched over the japanese on of the cargo on friday part of north korea's plan to achieve so-called military expert librium with the united states security forces in the sea of killed at least eighteen burundian refugees in the eastern town of come and you all are police and soldiers opened fire was the refugees protested over a resettlement plan witnesses say some of them threw rocks at security forces malaysian police have arrested seven teenagers in connection with a school fire that killed twenty four people on thursday most of those who died were boarding students in the school on the outskirts of kuala lumpur police suspect the teenagers started the fire that trapped students and teachers in a top floor dormitory and they turn as in governments lifted a ban on muslim women marrying non muslim men president. recommended the change saying to him if he needs to modernize muslim men were amount to marry him on the

normal some women not the other way around are those are your headlines here on al-jazeera up front with me at the house on his name. this is a sort of an age of simplistic narratives the listening post critiques the mainstream response exposing the influences that drive the headlines at this time on al-jazeera nuclear weapons threats of annihilation and volatile leaders of the u.s. and north korea on the road to war from special. fire and fury like the world has never seen that was donald trump's promise should north korea issue any more threats towards the united states yet this week kim jong un is government threaten the u.s. with the greatest pain and suffering it has ever gone through in its entire history

if the u.n. impose new sanctions which the u.n. did on monday night the toughest ever sanctions on north korea approved unanimously by the security council so how close are we to all out nuclear war or is there a viable diplomatic solution to this crisis to debate this i'm joined in the studio by robert gallucci a former u.s. assistant secretary of state who served as the chief u.s. negotiator during the last major crisis with north korea in one thousand nine hundred four and by sunni terry a former cia and u.s. national security council analyst on north korea from seoul by union qualm former south korean foreign minister and from beijing by charles liu a senior fellow at the peking university center on china and global affairs and the founder of how capital thank you all for joining me on this special edition of outfront robert gallucci let me start with you there's been escalating rhetoric from both sides missile tests joint exercises u.n. vote it all seems to be kicking off but how close do you think we actually are to

all out war to an armed conflict between the united states and allies and and the d.p. r. k. north korea would i want to say is that we're not. close it all but then of course i don't know and i think it's hard for anybody to know when you have leaders in the two countries. kim jong un and president trump who are relatively new to this deterrence game and i don't mean that flippantly but that the dynamic of that interaction you referred to some of their their comments so yes we could have a situation in which there's an escalation in north could do would have threatened to do which is splash down some missiles around. i don't think the rhetoric itself will cause an escalation toward fairly confident of that but i think a miscalculation is plausible and now we are dealing not only with the possibility of nuclear war which i think is relatively remote but the possibility of

a major conventional military engagements on the on the conventional point union quander in seoul your country's capital has a population nearly ten million less than sixty kilometers from the border with north korea even a conventional non-nuclear war would have catastrophic consequences for your country feel city tens of thousands maybe hundreds of thousands dead how worried are people in south korea right now or to you about the prospect for war i'm very much concerned and worried though about the current situation because i think the current situation is serious because quite all fun was broken. due to. misjudged. or were reaction so i think this is a kind of dangerous situation and nowadays more and more earnest south koreans. feeling the danger than before and they are pretty much

concerned that south koreans will worried about what donald trump will do or what kim jong un would do. i think we are concerned about north korean rhetoric i mean we are the only country which. is and the strength. of the united states and is a kind of violation of so core. a sort of cold up a conduct among nuclear powers and this kind of behavior is very interest and. american policymakers and. policymakers very much concerned that worried charles what's the mood in china is people in the west getting really upset concerned hysterical is a real danger war and in that part of the world. i go back to your previous question. i think one has to think also about the fact that.

a certain american president some years ago declared an axis of evil. whether or not that was the beginning of the bad rhetoric when there's no but as far as china is concerned. there is the short term the medium term in the long term and the key to long term strategic peacefulness or stability and. security for north asia will depend on whether or not the u.s. and china are covering eighty percent and twenty percent russia come to some understanding of north asian or north east asian stability the fundamentals are really great power politics unfortunately whether or not this war . the people in china certainly don't think. it is imminent. the only issue here is whether or not korea republic of korea actually has

a say on whether or not there is war whether or not donald trump which is decide to do so ok himself let me bring in sumi terry you were in the cia back in two thousand and two charles mentioned the axis of evil speech when north korea was added to iran and iraq are very late stage do you think that's where it all went downhill from there with this predates two thousand and two days because the north korean quite a nuclear crisis really began in only nine hundred ninety s. so that's way before president bush ever uttered the words axis of evil but i don't want to necessarily sort of going to the blame game because this is we're still we are where we are and where we are is north korea is close to completing the nuclear program completing the nuclear perfecting the nuclear arsenal with two intercontinental ballistic missile test and all six nuclear tests and united states still have very low. options to do something about this but in terms of axis of evil speech i don't think it's it was unfortunate i'm not happy the president whichever of those words but i don't think that's the reason for where we are where

we are right now if you had to put your finger on the number one reason why we are where we are what would you say i say kim jong un is the north koreans how i want to build nuclear weapons program completed now because they see nuclear weapons or to me ultimate way for the region to survive and they now are not going to give it up for probably any reason because again they're still having nuclear weapons as the ultimate care until for their survival i do want to have a discussion with you all about kind of what is the solution to this if there is a solution but before we get the i am a journalist i do like blame games let me bring in charles lou in beijing sumi terry mentioned earlier want to pinpoint where if you have to point the finger at a single factor person issue for blame which a lot of people would do is out of you sure. i think the blame really has to be shared. just looking at what president trump has been saying or going back to bush calling axis of evil the process was actually positive for quite some

time until. i think the kim family saw what happened to that the other members of the axis of evil i don't think what happened in iraq or libya really lent them much confidence to what potentially could happen to them if the u.s. continued its policy of regime change in countries with countries that they don't like let me put your regime point regime change point to suit me every time there's any kind of talk of north korea giving up its nuclear weapons program its nukes etc etc the north koreans publicly repeatedly point to iraq and libya as examples of what happens to a country that can't defend itself when the united states wants to change the government. how much do you think would you go knowledge that u.s. regime change was in recent years have brought us to this current point made i made already paranoid regime even more paranoid no absolute issue because now kim jong

il and the north koreans are looking at that i'm looking at is what happened to libya and absolutely true the wrong conclusion look you know libya decide to give up nuclear weapons and words qaddafi his dead look what happened to saddam hussein iraq is that so but i would just argue the north korea's nuclear program began way before they started the fifty six is accelerating seventy savings and the crisis began in one nine hundred ninety s. where there was before this was before you want invasion before leaving almost anything else it was a korean war with a lot of boys still in the engine if the rebels are part of this no more answers north koreans have their own reason for pursuing nuclear program it's not we need defense of reason that just started ok let me read you real it's not just a difference of reasoning it's a matter of fact i was going to make that point sumi was going to go in there we like to say those of us who favor negotiation i mean one news done it and do. and i do favor because she asian as a way of dealing with this well before the use of force however as we know it that the north koreans have concerns and more than it's a reasonable concerns about the united states using force to change the new regime

there for looking to nuclear weapons as a way to deter the united states that's a rather happy interpretation of north korean motivation you know after ian's also quite hate the us are ok alliance they are very upset at those military exercises we conduct jointly all the time and they would like to unify that peninsula if it was possible under the north korean regime that's not plausible when south korea is aligned with the united states of america cracking that alliance would have certain special appeal so i'm not saying this is the reason therefore there can be no normalization but i am suggesting to you that would be realistic about north korean motivations and that they include perhaps some thinking about separating seoul from washington as well. given the analysis let me read to you what james clapper obama's director of national intelligence until very recently the north koreans are

not going to give up their nuclear weapons it's a nonstarter so given what you're saying about the possibility of an offensive use or you know dominating the peninsula is containment of a nuclear north korea now the best bet living with a nuclear or is out of the install to two from the u.s. perspective that may be the the key question from an american perspective right now americans particularly the leadership at defense state at the n.s.c. and the president himself the key question is will we the united states live with the threat of nuclear annihilation in the hands of kim jong un the way we have lived with the soviet threat the russian threat and that you know this threat and in my view is that when the option is only the use of force which can lead to a second korean war we ought to think. about just shoring up deterrence and going with containment but i hasten to add we have not exhausted a negotiated route and i do not share general clapper's view that we can forget

about a non-nuclear korean peninsula i do believe in the long term normalization is possible you believe that still possible for north korea to give up those nuclear why do so many do or that i think it's highly unlikely that they were given a clue that ok let's go let's go to seoul let me just get can south korea live with a nuclear armed kim jong il all we cannot tolerate that it is important to recognize that we have not exhausted the diplomatic means what i'm saying is we have not yet fully implemented sanction i mean a complete sanction against north korea so that. changed his calculation of course and benefit. nuclear option the reason for that is that there was no international close international coordination.

sanctions against north korea for example you put first priority on the nuclear duty nuclear ideation but trying up put first priority on regime must have unity of north korea rather than denuclearization stored there was no cross coordination yet ok so how. much coordination from now on that is the key point that i think shows we're discussing whether north korea would ever give up its nuclear weapons and let me ask you this a lot of the say they'll never give it up unless china is the one that makes them give it up is that fair. let's let's let's go back to what the former foreign minister had the minister had just said. he's absolutely right china looks at the stability of the regime as much more important than denuclearization. the stability of the regime if you talk about a regime change if you continue to press for further sanctions if you start taking

a few out and food stuff out you're looking at a regime collapse is that something we want to see twenty million we'll talk to indoctrinated people with one and a half million in the armed forces well weaponized started crossing the border both south korea and china you tell me the one thing you'd like the u.s. to do right now and then i lost you really saying what they think china should do i think at least as china has been saying all along and gauge and gauge and gauge and not poor morphew on the fire or fire and fury you know indeed we do that right now we want to china be doing that we have from charles what we have seen a shyness than what he was saying about china's interest and priority in china wants to avoid instability in region collapse in north korea but china needs to see that we do not have much time left and does it really touch on a very one nuclear north korea what does that mean the missile possibly nuclear

arms race in the north east asian region with south korea part of japan following those potential nuclear proliferation now we're very close to a conflict more than ever before i still think it's unlikely but we are they are china south korea china is number one trading partner for south korea the trade partner between china south korea's double we're going to south korea u.s. south korea japan combined china only so have i think the difference in it is a sort of understand that there's interest in priority of just supporting north korea giving blank check to north korea has not worked and we're not at the close of the end game here and i think china needs to leave value should you showed earlier about you know the regime change was being a problem and charles has talked about the need to engage in gauge you said last week in an interview and also information warfare we need to help the people of north korea rise up that's the long term game the north korean people bring about the change we need you can't really engage with you also encourage regime i'm not i'm not a promoter and engagement are locked only because i feel you have given an option. the knowledge and sounds of your united states doing decapitation of the gene but

supporting the people rise up by supporting people of north korea because the horny the long time game here is that we need a different we jean to bring about non-nuclear north korea because kim's always built on completing the program and the only way to do that is a hell of colonel north graham bring about the change of air without rob. no i don't think i do quite the way sumi has just laid it out i do think as i've said a couple of times that there are possibilities for making movement with negotiations i certainly do believe unlike to accept your invitation to know to my colleague in china that the chinese position has been for me a tad conservative given what he has said and we understand to be china's interest in the continuation of that regime. we do not know i do not know whether the next thing that happens will be a north korean provocation and an american response which will bring american military and naval assets to the doorstep of china that cannot be what the chinese

want next and i would suggest that they should think about taking some risks in the direction of increased pressure at the end of the day though i don't know that china will do that and i think we still need to answer the question will the united states and should the united states tolerate for now the continued fielding of this capability to strike the united states with an i.c.b.m. which the americans cannot shoot down charles briefly don't respond to the. yes robert. i support your discussions your comments about engagement absolutely there is still a chance but i have to say in china's case bringing more american weapons or ships and planes to chinese waters or chinese border is nothing nothing new for china thirteenth fleet has been there for a long long time china has been surrounded by the first island chain i don't think it makes much difference if you bring

a couple more nuclear carriers over the key for china is stability stability so countries in the region can grow as for sunni's discussion about all china must do more and that there will be a nuclear arms race it comes back to my point whether or not there will be a nuclear arms race in north asia. will also depend on whether or not they you want us want them to have also not china and the us ok on that let me ask young cornett in seoul i think the defense minister in south korea recently said the u.s. should perhaps review its decision on whether or not to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to south korea is that something useable many would say that would be just ratcheting up the conflict to the next level i think we south korean government and people have to consider that option as well as nuclear development. because. if we admit accept north korea as

a nuclear power there should be serious baron military security in variance between the north and south and south korea is really a few threatened and that naturally lead to a deal comes the ration of nuclear option or redeploying tactical nuclear weapons i think china had read to think that that kind of nuclear proliferation in this region will be beneficial for their own long term security interest i think i think i'm going to try and i will you suffer from the kind of new theater caused by north korea nuclear ideation or let me just throw this in china has been used to having both india and pakistan who are not very friendly with nuclear weapons let me also just borders let me ask a question before we run out of time i do want to ask your questions i'm sure many

viewers at home will be asking which is kim jong un himself here is a young leader and he's never met with a foreign leader he now has potential to attack the united states with nuclear weapons is he irrational is he crazy is he suicidal is the question is often asked let me ask all of you your take on the leaders of robert i don't have any reason to believe he's suicidal. i believe we can do the basic calculations necessary for deterrence that's why i think we can depend upon deterrence as we have in europe and as we have in asia for a long time it's not something that i want to translate into acceptance of the north korean nuclear weapons program because i quite agree if we do that then we do do something to our extended deterrence to the south koreans and to the japanese and encourage them in the direction of nuclear weapons acquisition but with respect to kim jong un i think that deterrence will work but. i think we need to assume that jim jones is not suicidal and. care as

much he's always still bibo as well as his regime is the bible. i think under that assumption i think we need to send a clear signal to north korea for example what we want is a policy change not a regime change or a preventive were so i think we need to think and clear signal consistently that we need policy change and a change their policy we provide some security guarantee or. regimes to have military weary help them i think that's the assumption on which our in years my south korea as you can gauge one policy has been based on charles you visited north korea i believe i mean how does the reality of north korean society and the way they treat their leader and you know

allegations of brainwashing much with what your experiences are on the ground. i think much of the propaganda that we see coming out of korea is really for domestic consumption i think it's to maintain of course the nuclear deterrence is to maintain the regime and himself and his family and his cohorts but the other part is really for domestic consumption there has been significant transformation i wouldn't say transformation yet but changes in in north korea the situation seems to have improved. and there seems to be much more interest in the basic economic life of the hood of the population so it's a carrot just very robots more lively how do you believe deterrence can work between a nuclear north korea and a nuclear armed united states under kim jong il and donald trump by the way. i

wouldn't say donald trump is a very good example of what the american presidencies strategic vision is but. as far as the north korean side i think you could sit here and certainly work ok especially if it's guaranteed by the us china and russia ok sumi i mean i asked the questions of three guests about kim jong il's rationality let me ask you about his and donald trump's rationale to you what in the cia in the national security council if you were in government right now you'd be trying to give advice to president trump a former property developer and reality t.v. star about perhaps the world's biggest crisis how would you feel about well i really would consider you know it doesn't but i would echo what everybody said i do think that it's ruthless actually he's more ruthless than even his father just to see you know when you look at how he assassinated in tongues and take his uncle and his half brother but he's ruthless but he's not suicidal i don't think there is a logical he's about or about reaching preservation so i do think ultimately turns

in containment could work with a nuclear north korea by. i just want to point out the problem with that is one problem with that is because it's not just about survival north korea's long term goal is to get u.s. forces out of the question and then. i'm somewhat worried about nuclear blackmail in terms of living with nuclear north korea i'm going to give last word to robert gallucci trump and kim both of that you're trying to talk about getting in a room with kim meeting with could give us ever going to happen trump and kim what could possibly go wrong but it seems to me that we're in a very dangerous situation in sumi has said and we are for in large part because of the leadership in both countries and i including my own the president has been volatile on any number of issues including this one and i would like that tone to go down it's we have a huge discount factor that you apply and i apply to everything that comes out of

pyongyang we shouldn't have that with what comes out of washington and on that note we'll have to leave it there thank you all for joining me on this special edition of outfront. showed up probably back next week. let's talk about now. right now. right now it's happening so fast. you can barely keep up with it. right now we've got clowns protecting. on mobile technology finding clean water not tomorrow not five years in the future. now. in a disaster the internet can be restored by a truck. in

a mine this truck can drive itself and right now this child is being treated by a doctor from six thousand miles away this is science not fiction and cisco networks are making it happen now. because when everything is securely connected anything is possible and there's never been a better time to change the world. along europe's baltic borders tensions are increasing as nato strengthens us defenses and russia gears up for war games over it so of course we'll weren't really worried about unpredictability of russia we have to be prepared and we have to react if needed but will the conflict rehearsals ever translate into the real thing as the see if you don't want to war prepare for war people in power reports as tony i'm going on a bear hunt at this time on a. different whether.

it's how you. doing. story in my out. this is al jazeera. and live from studio fourteen here at al-jazeera headquarters in doha for the bad to go welcome to the news great we just want to vote the fight over catalonia as independents.