ah, jump into the stream 10 percent of the population globally is responsible for about 15 percent of carbon emissions joined the debate. people have already lost their life. people, how close that culture people have those traditions have your say, want to broaden this conversation by bringing more voices into it. live on you to people commenting. i want the whole world to know that jackie are not headed to wreckage is always is with the power that the the stream on al jazeera, the united states and south korea, signed an agreement to confront threats from north korea. wanting to young, young against using nuclear weapons. china says washington is provoking confrontation. what does this deal mean for the region there and for peace, isn't sites. i

hello there and welcome to the program. i'm the se darzy at the white house rolled out the red carpet for south korea as president john secure a 6 day state visit underlying how important this guest is to washington and just how deep ties are. oh, good news. 6 well, the american pie was far from the only thing on the menu. discussions are set to cover trade, security, and geo politics. the trip began with the signing of a new accord, promising us protection for south korea against the threat of nuclear attack from pyongyang. so what will this decoration mean for the asian pacific? and what's the reaction been we'll be discussing that with our guests than just a few moments but fast alexander buyers talks us through the details of the deal,

a show of military strength, underscoring a powerful alliance. as us president joe biden welcomed south korean president used to kill to the white house on wednesday. it's the 1st u. s. state visit between the 2 in 12 years designed to reaffirm decades of defense, cooperation, and project a united front in the face of increased missile testing by north korea. and growing alarm in the south. nuclear attack by north korea against the united states or allies of partisans. partners is unacceptable and will result in the end of whatever regime were to take such an action. the 2 leaders have signed a new plan called the washington declaration. they say it's an unprecedented expansion of their nuclear deterrence in the region. it includes joint exercises and the regular deployment of us tactical assets to the peninsula. even though

south korea is officially a nonproliferation country, i'm young going to kind of go she's our countries have agreed to presidential consultations in the event of a north korean nuclear attack. and promised to respond swiftly, overwhelmingly, and decisively, using the full force of our alliance, including the united states as nuclear weapons. for the 1st time in 40 years, american nuclear submarines will be deployed to south korea for its part, soul has committed to not developing its own nuclear weapon. instead remaining under washington's umbrella questions remain whether that will be enough to reassure those on the ground. we don't know house how often they will come korea, you know, how only will stay around the area and all that. because the whole point of summary is that all that information will be kept in dark. so those, so those cory, us who wanted a stronger protection than this are saying what came out this time is not exactly

fully satisfied. china's condemned the move, accusing the 2 leaders of provoking confrontation and deliberately stirring up tensions with north korea. but just how much influence beijing has is up for debate . for many south koreans, the priority is simply who's doing more to defend us. alexandra buyers for inside story. ah. well, joining me now our, our guests in booth on south korea. we have shown o'malley. he's a professor of international studies at dogs. your university in washington, d. c. greg scott, scholar to you. he is the executive director of the committee for human rights in north korea. and in beijing we have an italian, a senior fellow at the ty, her institute, a non profit, think tank a warm welcome to you, or thank you for joining us on inside story, gentleman. now obviously there's plenty to discuss, but i do want to start with the practicalities of the agreement. now one of the big

ticket items we're talking about is these regular deployments of a u. s. nuclear submarine to south korean water south korean harbors. but correct me if i'm wrong, if a u. s. nuclear submarine is at a south korean harb, i believe it's too close to actually target north korea. sean, is this then really just for show? well, thank you. yeah, in some sense it is for show it as a show of commitment and resolve from the united states that they to have the capability, much like north korea, has tried to demonstrate lately of submarine launch, ballistic missile capability, and that they will deploy to the peninsula if necessary, and it makes for a strike on north korea, that could be a surprise to run anticipated. the united states, of course, would not launch a surprise attack against north korea, but it is

a warning that the technology is there. and that if north korea wants to flaunt such technology that it's developed, that the united states can do the same thing and that it will do so in order to protect it, alliance partner. so in some sense it is more for show. so when you say this is about florentine technology, but this is also part of the u. s. is extended to turns policy, right? but for the turns to work, it's not just about showing your capability is you will need to demonstrate your will to retaliate. and does this do that? not really. i mean, the, the subs would be better off in an unknown location. remember, a submarine is a delivery vehicle mostly for 2nd strike. that is if you know there is an attack submarines are supposed to be hidden and they would follow up the us can quite frankly send missiles to north korea from mainland america. this is not an issue, actually, it's strategically a very bad move because you know,

the north koreans can park there under water, drones outside the harbors. and just kind of follow these nuclear subs around thereafter. also exposing them in a port where they're not going to be able to be retrofitted or they could be re supplied. but they, they spent about 2 thirds of their time at see one 3rd in a facility wherever they do repairs. it is purely for show, but definitely i don't think the pentagon is going to be very happy. greg. i know you want to jump in here. how is this going? i've run north korea g. thank. well, according to a 2021 study by the rand corporation, north korea will be in possession of 200 nukes by the year 2027, which is comparable to the u. k. o french nuclear arsenal. about half of china's, by that time, we have seen that the south korean public has grown increasingly war in about north

korea's nuclear program. north korea is a black hole on the map of northeast asia, south korea, as the world stands, largest economy. according to a study by the asana institute, 53 percent of south koreans are in favor of developing a domestic deterrent. well, that would be a really tough proposition. south korea will have, would have to pull out of the non proliferation treaty, south korea, all of all the economy, all about some song, l, g and the successful companies, south korea would come under sanctions. so of course, this is a, an emotional reaction on the outside south. koreans are very interested in taking charge of their own national defense, which is great. but this recent move of docking us nuclear submarines in the south korean boards is more than just to show it reinforces

the belief, confidence in extended deterrence based on a rock solid us rock alliance. and if you look at the washington declaration, what it says is that the republic of korea has full confidence in us extended deterrence commitments and recognizes the importers necessity and benefit of its enduring reliance on the us nuclear deterrent. so this is all about boosting south korean confidence in the alliance is said, a historic meeting 1st stage, visit him 12 years. and this meeting has really been focused on the economy and also an extended tourist and the ally all greg, clearly this is all about trust and i want to bring sean in here because i was also looking at some of the poll numbers. you mentioned the majority of south koreans, i came to develop their own new care. awesome. i mean, some of those poll numbers actually go up to the seventy's,

like 70 percent of south koreans want to nuclear weapon. now we've talked about this being a message to pyongyang. this was clearly also a message to the south korean public to try to appease them. sean, does the washington decorations do that? i don't think so. i think that for the time being they're trying to placate a domestic audience here in south korea that is pushing for. busy busy and indigenous nuclear turned. those numbers have been going out for the last 10 years here in south korea. and the majority of south koreans would rather have an indigenous program than relying on the united states. and i think that in the short to medium term that's of interest by the public is going to have to be addressed in something much more concrete than the washington declaration presents. i let me throw this to you because i, i can see you went in full agreement that no, well,

no, i think is common sir. good, but the previous are, are man in washington. i understand those are the talk points of the state department, but quite frankly, let's address the elephant in the room. the reason the south koreans want their own nuclear deterrent is because they don't trust the us. there's been a loss. they look at what happened afghanistan, iraq, the, you know, that everywhere around the world, the u. s. has gone as it is not fulfilled as promises walked away from treaties or whether it's kyoto or paris or the j. c p. o. way. not the kind of soft that's going to make people feel that the u. s. is going to honor its commitments. so at this juncture, i think they're saying, well, we have to do this or shelves and things. now i'm not in favor that i don't think anyone else's, if to south korea gets it, it'll only be a matter of time before japan. and perhaps a whole chain of countries in southeast asia decide that they also need to have a nuclear weapon. so and talking about a potential, andreas,

before we go down that path of conversation, i want to just focus a little here on south korea for a moment because watching president, you, in thing american pie there, i mean, it really seems like a full phrase. it embrace of america even after the recent revelations that the u. s. has been spying on some of its allies. we thought that might be awkward, but they seem to have moved on from that and the relationship. is there the political appetite? do you think in south korea to try to start an indigenous program within the leadership? i'm i'm talking about here greg, what do you think? well, i think that those interviewed for those surveys need to put in serious thought and realize what the consequences will be. since 1953. there has been no reason to doubt us commitment to the us rock alliance. this is a, a strong partnership alliance friendship brotherhood. and sisterhood forged on the

brutal, bloody battle fields of the korean war. ah, and despite, as the other speakers have mansion, what are the perception might be about what has happened elsewhere in the world? that commitment to the alliance is rock solid? this is the message that the 2 presidents are, are sending right now, president biden, and president, you extended it, turns on surrounding the korean peninsula has been an accomplishment of the biden administration strengthening that extended a tourist. so i don't know else or what more. the 2 presidents can do to enhance the confidence of the south korean public. why and the u. s. one of the things greg potentially they could do is to put a nuclear weapon on south korean soil. but present, mine has been very, very clear, but they're not willing to do that. now that wasn't the case several decades ago.

so i'm curious. sure. let me bring you in here. what's changed is this about stopping nuclear proliferation in the region, or is there another strategic consideration? the united states has always said that their primary concern about south korea having nuclear weapons, is that it allows for greater proliferation of nuclear weapons and will be to an arms race in the region. i'm not sure if that logic actually holds up, but they are not interested in south korea having nuclear weapons indigenous lee and the bind administration is not interested in putting a nuclear weapons here. that said, i think, you know, as we look at some of the poll numbers and you asked about political will here in south korea to create a nuclear deterrent. i don't think there is political will to go that far yet. but the numbers do show that the south korean public, the global affairs council had an excellent survey back in early 2022. that showed

that south koreans, for the primary reasons of a threat except for north korea. so it's right outside of north korea. it's is 55 percent of the main reason for people believing in nuclear deterrence is necessary here. indigenous li mostly probably focused on china and 26 percent. the 2nd most popular answer was for the prestige of south korea. so the south koreans are well aware that they are the only non nuclear power in the region of japan has enough to tony and process that they can have a crash course and have nuclear weapons within weeks. and so south korea is really on the outs as far as an equal partner when it comes to sitting at the negotiating tables with ne, asian nuclear powers. and i think the south public would like that to change. well, that's interesting, you say sitting at the negotiation table because it felt like one of the big wins to south korea here was their inclusion. and what they're calling this nuclear

consultative group to get involved in nuclear planning with the u. s. pops and decision making, which they haven't been involved in by my understanding before. i know how big of a deal is that for south korea? well, it is, it, once again we're talking about a pantomime here. you're going to be involved in what you know, nuclear policy is whether you push the button or not. i don't know a house to simplify it anymore. but let, let's look beyond, you know, these are the outside. you know, the, the u. s. is also pressuring south korea and other things. china has started a action against mike braun, the solar cells, about 25 percent of its total goods memory chips in china. that's about $15000000000.00 and bind it said to him, it said to south korea, we want you to put pressure on samsung and high next, not to sell to china to make up the deficit. well, all of a sudden there's this nuclear talk, this nuclear agreement. this is

a president in korea who has 36 percent approval rating. i mean, he and by have a lot to talk about in that area. and it's also, you know, it's a little odd that it's coming right on the heels of, of china announcing that the, you know, they had an, i'm very nice phone call from, with zalinski after they've been trying to push peace in the middle east. and the response is we're gonna put nuclear missiles somewhere near south korea. now there's going to be a legal case involved in this because the territory of the, you know, the, the bays where these submarines go in. these are territorial waters. it's the same thing. it doesn't matter if the u. s. is controlling or not, those nuclear weapons are going to be in the sovereign territory of south korea. so i'm sure there will be some complaint and say that this is in fact, the violation of the agreement. greg, i'll let you jump in here. i know you also wanted to talk about the other considerations here for south korea, the economic ones, which i know was also touching on that. thank you. let's remember the fundamentals

. the reason why there are 20500 us service men and women in south korea. is that on june the 25th 1950, north korea invaded south korea. we don't have a peace treating place just an armistice. absolutely right. south korea is an economic powerhouse. the sacrifice would be great pulling out of the m b p and developing nuclear weapons. there will be more aligning sanity. of course, this is a very emotional reaction, even though these people in the north are black mailing off with a world stamp largest economy. why not have oral nuclear weapons? i disagree with the point that south korea is the only non nuclear power in the region. japan is not a nuclear power. south korea, of course, also relies on nuclear power and has the capability to re process and develop nuclear weapons within about 12 months. remember, there is still article 9 of the japanese constitution that our laws, the resolution of international disputes through arm conflict. so the price to pay

would be great. south korea is not going nuclear. south korea in south koreans are going to be reassured by this state visit by president hewn to the white house to the united states that the alliance is strong, that the united states continues to be committed to extended turns to containing the north korean threat. why are we doing this? because they will have 200 nuclear warheads by the year 2027, because they just tested on 18 a 3 stage ballistic massage, capable of reaching practically, probably any point within the continental united states. so the tension is not driven by south korea or the u. s. rock alliance with tension is being driven by is north korean propagation. so let me ask you the question there, that greg alluding to than have us calculations risk calculations in particular, had they potentially changed. now that we're seeing increased north korean

capabilities, a hit city isn't in the continental united states. i think any good military strategist would say that things have definitely changed over the last few years. the military 1st policy in north korea has seen a number of successes over the past couple of years, including the cruise missile technology tests of summer in the launch based missiles and recently solid fuel rocket launch. so they're moving ahead in their evolving and the united states is going to have to evolve with it. so is south korea? i would like to piggyback on what was just sent, however, and saying that although south korea may not get in a digital nuclear capability and they don't have the will for the united states right now. currently enjoys an approval rating of about 90 percent here and south korea. and china has a negative approval of about 80 percent as far as friendly countries towards south

korea and the south korean population within that perspective politically is it's a very polarized environment right now. so already the opposition party, the democratic party is attacking you, that president you, that the summit has been a failure and it's a blow to national interest in a blow to national security. and his party, the people power party is saying that it's a great success, that extended insurance has been strengthened and that south korea is in a better position. so i think south koreans have a lot of soul searching to do. and president, you need to build a consensus over the next few years about what the vision is for south korean diplomatic policy and foreign policy. because he is his vision is not really agreed upon yet by the public. this drawing closer to the united

states and seemingly pushing away from china and russia, although he has not said that himself that he wants to push way. i feel like this is a good time to look more specifically at the chinese reaction to all of this. obviously, beijing doesn't seem particularly pleased. i want a quote from the foreign ministry. what the u. s. is doing, provokes confrontation between camps, undermines the nuclear nonproliferation regime and the strategic interests of other countries. but it does feel like there's a bit of a paradox here because this whole policy that the u. s. halves of, of extended to turns means that china is essentially the only country other than north korea, with an active nuclear program in the region. surely, i know that's not gone unnoticed and beijing. oh yes, of course. but i mean right now as we discussed early on, it doesn't matter where these nuclear arms are. they can be fired from anywhere from the cancer, continental u. s. from navy ships, airplanes,

and submarines. so this issue that bringing them closer is an issue for china is i don't think it's correct. but as i said, there's a very stark difference to believe that it's going forward and it was very noticeable, very little up press time was given to this particular issue. instead, they were doubling down on what's happening in ukraine. and the fact that she is appealing to the central asian states to be part of this piece process, trying to assemble a group of, of unbiased and trustworthy countries that can intercede. so china's going to the, to stick to it's idea that pushing piece is far better in terms of appealing to the global south and central asia. the u. s. believes that, you know, offering my more nuclear deterrents and things like that at a time when the world is already fraught with problems, trust, etc. is going to suddenly help. i mean, i,

i don't believe it is. i don't think any of my cohorts believe that more arms or the or the answer for everything. just like a u. s. or guns are not the answer. i think, i think we should keep in mind that the south korea in the united states have stated they are interested in talks with north korea unconditionally and that north korea has not taking them up on that at all yet. and so in a vacuum, the alliance feels they have to take a certain positions and the washington declaration, as is one more evolution of those positions, until they can sit down and do more talking with north korea. so that, you know, you know what, i want to point out every president since it was it since world war 2 said that they're not gonna allow another country, especially when north korea became an issue to have nuclear weapons. now we're all sitting here acknowledging that they do have nuclear weapons that they can hit the united states. where is the responsibility for this?

i mean it's, it's been failed efforts on both sides that have led to the situation where everybody is in danger. i want to take a pause here because i know you just mentioned a number of presidents have had said the same thing where we are talking about a number of potential different presidents dealing with south korea here. there is a u. s. election next year, and we're talking about the washington declaration as if it's going to continue indefinitely. but that might not actually be the case. this could actually all be news. so greg, let me ask you, you're sitting in washington dc and you're talking to to south koreans and north koreans. how anxious is sol at the moment about a potential change in administration? it is very important to remember that since the end of the cold war for more than 30 years, we have been dealing with these extraordinarily serious issues. north korea's nukes and ballistic missiles, the lives of millions are at stake. and it's also important to remember that in

order to address the north korean conundrum, one needs the application of all elements of national power, the dime d i m e. diplomacy. indeed, i agree with the other speakers continues to be in order. we need to be open to that. we need to continue to send information into north korea. we need to continue to empower the people of north korea through information from the outside world. this information has to be customized based on north korea, on an understanding of north korea. social classification system, which is based on loyalty, military power through extended insurance is important. and economic, the application of economic power through sanctions is 3 borders. so this has to be a comprehensive package. my organization is currently making an argument for a paradigm shift, a human rights up front approach, including human rights in all of the issues that we address you want to bring in here. very,

very briefly. you're sitting in the sun. how never saw people there about a potential time presidency. oh, yeah, i think that's a bit of a worry probably more for economic reasons than security reasons. however, he economic policies of the trump administration were a problem. some of them have carried over into the bind administration and south trans believe that has hurt them economically. and so i think that's much more important to them regarding a trump presidency than, than the security implications. but you know, we'll have to wait and see sort of how that plays out. come next year. we will indeed, i imagine beijing is watching very closely as well. and i, is there anxiety over there? not really. i don't think that you see trump is a viable candidate. he can win the nomination for the republican side, but it's very doubtful that he'll be able to get to unite his own party behind him

. and additionally, yet the independence that would be necessary for him to become president. so right now it's, it's going to is shaping up to be not a very great race. it's possible that trump seeing that if he tell out when he'll throw his weight behind another republican, who he does think and when i in exchange for pardon, right now, his legal troubles are really mounting and it's hard to see that he will escape unscathed or clearly an election that will have huge repercussions though, for the region that we're all talking about. we'll leave it there for now. thank you to all of our guests. so on, emily, an italian and greg, scholar to you and thank you to for watching. remember, you can see the program again any time by visiting our website that's al jazeera dot com. and for further discussion, do go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash ha inside story. you can also join the conversation on twitter handle is at a j inside story for mean associates, hey, and the whole team here and there. huh. ah

ah and a g. a pushing with

one tour global perspective. mm. mm. oh oh, you're watching the news, our life from a headquarters and ohio a that coming up in the next 60 minutes. so don's latest frequently violated ceasefire is due to expire.