amanda hancock, the editor a bbc radio thought sunday program, and religious newsmagazine for domestic british audience which had appeared coverage of global religion suggests that atheism a disproportionate coverage these days. a reflection, she wonders, of

the interest of the secular news from. i suspect the leisure of the alabama aps i met a decade ago and would strongly disagree with that. on my way in meeting my brethren alabama in the throes of a state election where roadside signs urged me to vote for jesus. when i found him he told me of the crosses that have been planted on his manicured lawn and the abuse his children's had faced a school because their dad was an atheist. agassi is enjoying the news as he is not alone, but of solidarity. i talked about the positive influence the digital media, the democratization of religion, and its coverage with so many new voices out there which is a good thing, but they're is a flip side and one to my belief car reinforces our argument that we need more professionals giving informed and impartial reporting and religion because while more people are writing and everyone feels they can weigh in on the subject, it does mean more

biased and informed opinion, especially in an age where the disappearing religious lectures see in the west is a byproduct of the move away from established religion. social media have also been enthusiastically embraced by islamist extremists. al qaeda use the iran effectively to put out videos and statements around the globe to recruit more foot soldiers. they're tweeting victory poses from the battlefields in syria. establishment voices, authority figures in islam and other mainstream religions have often been less quick to realize the potential of the digital age, perhaps initially seeing it as a threat or as an irrelevance. the vatican did catch up, and the new pope has a very active twitter count. he is no less the most talked-about person on the internet and, indeed, in the world. justice to the d'agata tweet with a link to a story of in picking of the hitchhiker in st. peter's square. it turned out to be a fellow

argentinian priest he recognized in the crowd. so he and his priest and the pope mobile went around the world in an instant. so this brings me to the story you thought i had forgotten about when the roman catholic hierarchy in its deepest crisis in centuries manages to pull off the most inspired move, and i think of the logically, but as a journalist. the most inspired and savvy move ever by electing the little-known man who got away last time as pope. the catholic hierarchy that had been written off as riddled by corruption and sexual abuse scandals have been capable of putting its own house in order and ever gaining a positive headline, managing to up and that narrative almost instantly with the election of a princess. the choice of name, the gesture, the humble living in the identification with the poor be mined the media battle field as one colleague put it.

and five words spoken last summer in response to a question about kate priests, who reminded judge, it blindsided the news media and won him many converts in unlikely places. his other pau and gestures, the striking symbolism of him washing the feet of muslim and women inmates on my thursday, hugging and disfigured man, shooting the trappings of rna son's office, driving himself around in his old little beaten up car have made him something of a saint to a secular world program sensor to one. and so time magazine embraced and has person of the year and more strikingly, asserted they can magazine, the advocate. you would've seen this coming two years ago, let alone to and when everything started to go wrong. the big question for the future, can the honeymoon last, as martin marty puts it. arch traditionalists who been quietly splitting are taking

comfort in the fact that bulbs cannot change doctrine and that he cannot do any more than shift the tone. as an the other side say precisely the opposite. an excellent piece of last month's new yorker by james carroll pointed out the church's doctrine has and does change on such matters as the jews killed jesus' teaching and often is clearly sympathetic. style is not just the cover of the book, is the book itself. i suspect that he might also find some sympathy among scholars of media, religion, and culture. i will then now with a few predictions of the stories i think we might see more of. the arabs spring and it's messy aftermath remains huge, and what happens in the future within islam in the middle east will have an enormous ripple effect. pope mania will come -- continue, but we will get a clear indication of where this pope is taking his church. not least from this amount of bishops in 2014 this year and

the very interesting survey, the pubs commissions to be discussed there. he was the views of catholic on remarriage after divorce and contraception. pope seeking the views of his flock, the timely democratization of religion or its downfall, much heated debate about that. and the culture wars continue to evolve as it once cohesive religious right has been replaced by alliances across denominations and even religion and national borders as believers fight for their right, for their space in the public's fear. we see battles against religious persecution and for religious freedom at one end of the spectrum, and that the other we see individual fights for the rights to wear religious symbols not to work on the sabbath, served alcohol, after. more continuously receive religious claims of conscience pitted against the civil rights increasingly unbalanced and secular society. most notably in the question over whether believers right to religious conscience allows them

to discriminate against gays for employees who want contraception coverage in their health insurance plans. these arguments are being played out mccourt, the u.s. supreme court and the european court of human rights and will continue to do so reflecting a wider dilemma, this is include put by a fellow british reporter, of canal broadly secular society tolerate the existence of religious subcultures which live by their own self-imposed rules? much to reflect on. in greater need than ever, my belief, for the experts to play their role because, as any religion reporter and keen reader of oscar wilde knows, the truth is really pure and never simple, but it is worth getting it's nearing. thank you. [applause]

>> sank you very much. that was very, very interesting, as we thought it will be. we have time for questions and answers. with the recording we would like to have microphones, perhaps. you could handle one. we could have a volunteer and another. and we will have the floor open for questions. who would like to begin? >> i wonder, how do you see is the role of the media today when there is a gap that it's hard to reach.

i would like you, if you can elaborate, how'd you see the role of the media, has it bridge the gap or maybe it makes it even worse? his mom and europe? >> very interesting and tough question. a lot to unpack and there. i think there is one story that leaps out at me which encapsulates so many angles to the battle between freedom of expression as some saw it and a liberal democratic europe across the media itself and a beneficiary and product of a liberal western democratic culture very much stronger supports and defends free of expression verses freedom of religion and people the friend -- defending their religious right, the religious world view. and the most treking example for me, and we can mention more recent ones, the whole fury over

the profit mohammad cartoons in denmark. there were so many different angles to that. clearly it infuriated and inflamed so much opinion in the islamic world, the modern media with the digital age since sending images around the world. we have danish imams in denmark traveling to the middle east to share the story of how these 12 questions or blasphemous, offending islam and the prophet mohammad. juneau, the fact that you can't even depicting images of the profit but to depict images of a bomb on the head was just very inflammatory basically. and so that triggered this huge fire storm. we had riots around the world, as you recall. we had killings of people. it was -- it set off a tragic series of events, but it also set off really heated debates

about the role of the media, freedom of expression, about the place of religious minorities in your, but the accommodations that can be made. it was interesting to see people in the western media he did not necessarily think it was a great idea come to the defense of the danish organization that published them because it was about freedom of expression. it was seen to be a line being drawn in the sand about where the limits of tolerance or of the views of religious minority. at the time there were many muslims to quite reasonably said , hang on. there are some interesting contradictions here. a europe that is talking about freedom of expression. it also has several countries which our law denial of the holocaust that there is a limit to free-speech. and so there were all sorts of these interesting debates going on and much bigger snapshots of

what was going on religious communities within europe and how far europe was prepared to go to accommodate it. that was one example. in terms of the media world, the media was clearly involved in that to some extent has a proponent as a defender of free speech and the liberal values that the media really cherishes. but there were also pockets of the media with there were interesting discussions going on, dialogues, people getting together, trying to calm things down. of course that sort of story, the interfaith peace conference, the dialogue is not as broadly covered in the media that tends to focus on friction, differences of opinion, big news events. it is quite hard to sell an interfaith conference to news editors in the newsroom, though i do think one should try to read. >> in the back.

[inaudible question] >> is this working? wanted to know, just to stick to that point, you have covered religion in the states and also in europe there was a point somewhere people were enthralled with this notion of american exceptional as an. those have been talking about european exceptional as and when it comes to religion. that is to say europe is the only place for religion is kind of a building thing. the rest of the world, that is something that people are into an draw from. europe is the only place where people like to what is this. elaborate on the tension between how we treat religion in the public space, the state as opposed to europe?

>> i've read praised davies in this area. at think you're right. it is the god con man out in many regards. dimension the secularization about this. religion in europe was about to die out. all post industrial, getting progressive and educated. of a sudden religion's turnaround and cott europe off guard. certainly if you look at rates of religious attendance, churches, it european rates are low. have lived in a czechoslovak republic. seen to be by some accounts the most atheistic country in the world, like one or 2 percent of people profess any religious belief. clearly it is the odd 1m. absolutely fascinating. america is the embodiment of how wrong the secularization about

this was. and yet on the flip side we are getting data suggests that religious affiliation, churchgoing is going down quite a lot in america. we're now getting figures of eight diaz, 12 percent atheism which is quite large category. and these are looking into it is difficult because some of the surveys pose questions such as to you regard yourself as speediest, agnostic, or something else nonreligious. it is a nonreligious area that i find there's a lot of interesting things to be done. a lot of people would say that spiritual but not religious. a lot of people interested and, for instance, next month as a wisdom two. zero conference. and where thou advertising on line and they're talking about this intersection of -- wisdom and his alleged.

they're talking about wisdom leaders that you can go and see, go to your rooms, meditation. there's an inspiration village. all of these new leaders who are not being touted as religious or spiritual leaders, but wisdom leaders, people are in search of this more immediate experience. i will quote from the program, join us to experience how to live with more presence in the digital age. all sorts of interesting and fluid things are happening in america and elsewhere. i agree with you that europe is very much the odd continent out and some ways. >> because of your provisioned background and when media coverage, could you talk a little bit about the entertainment part of media? for example, father ted,

remember, will we be watching in the future? to you think there's a kind of mission that bubble in the news coverage but at the same time entertainment part of it? the coverage of religion. >> in the early not to cy was invited to a high-level gathering at the bbc, all departments, news, entertainment , everybody was invited to think about religion in a different way and reflecting the audiences role. i think there was a sense the religion had come back out of nowhere, as if it never really gone away. came upon the scene explosively, especially with 9/11 and all the fallout from that. so the news editors and the editors of all the apartments are -- art, entertainment, science, drama got together and try to discuss how to better reflect the views of the british

audiences, interest to try to us give a fuller picture of what was going on in to come of religion from different angles. that was a very top down approach and had a very mixed success. for while you start to see dramas. soap operas like these tenders which is been on for years start to tackle some of these religious themes, start to introduce new characters. you might be a muslim. a gay character, very ethical issues worked out. so they did trade, but i'm not sure that i completely agree with the top down approach. then, interest waived and it's moved on, certainly on a big fan of father ted. the satirical comedy father to it was great. and i wish there were more of it up there. >> i will take the privilege of the chair in july a question of my own. i have always been interested in

the discourse within discourse about religious journalism. the problem of evaluating religion, one of the reason why journalists have been reluctant to cover religion is because as judy was quoted as saying one time, there are some many of them. you have to choose between them. and so i'm wondering whether you think that situation will change in this new area talking about where more and more religious expression can well up through social interaction traditional media and whether because it is no longer framed authoritatively by media voices or editorial, you know, decision making, whether there will be more of a discourse of comparing them and is this one better than the one and that sort of thing. >> very interesting. i think yes. yes. in this new digital age who will see much more of that and more of their religion.

i do think traditional media continues to struggle, certainly in terms of the news culture that i have come out of because when you have a story that breaks, i news story and it is evaluated for its value as a news events, there is reflex of approach that looks for the leaders to speak to the authority figures. well, that is breaking down and the wisdom conferences and elsewhere. this more democratized space, the new digital media is more receptive to introducing other forces who are not the archbishops, are not the imams, the rabbis. so there is this leveling going on, but in traditional media it is difficult. i face that many times. a fun covering a hard news story there would be a great receptivity to me covering the suicide bombings.

i would be asked again and again to the point that i got quite sick of having to explain the so-called said it -- theology of suicide bombings and get to the people who could talk of authoritatively about how it does not fit with mainstream islam. but there was less receptivity in the traditional news space to the kind of as many newsletters would see the touchy-feely stuff, spirituality, and the other and audience interest was huge. hard to gauge. we did not have ways of gauging it. there was a great deal of audience interest in the series a debt under graphics in the where religion set of fall than the ways in which there was a sort of post religion religion involving a secular your. there was a lot of interest and that sort of thing. at think there is still in a very structured media environment in the traditional media there is this natural urge to go and seek out the authority structure. the authority, leaders, the

voices over authority, when they are not there their left scratching their heads a little bit. also, i think there is a sort of ingrained bias against -- and that touched on it with this of the feeling that dobro when the end everything going on the internet, the sort of a new spirituality out there, that it is anti intellectual, that it really does not just find much knew space. there is a bit of that going on. sometimes when i was presenting a program i would be trusted to be a regular news journalist if i was interviewing the archbishop of canterbury, i would be expected to be putting the tough questions to him and would be just to do so, but if there was somebody else there who was a little bit more what do spirituality and was told to go really hard on them because of this sort of suspicion of it and the fact and it really was not that justified as religion.

>> you started enter some of my question. i was just wondering, you were talking earlier about having to defend their religious beat with the bbc. i was wondering how you see journalists approaching defending the coverage of rising mediated religious practices if i can use the term of a box religion, and i was wondering if you had how journalists would approach issues of legitimacy and authenticity with their religious experience as their increasingly mediated. >> i think it is quite hard for religion journalists to go into these areas. because for instance when i was religion correspondent i was often unraveling trying to and picked weather a war with sectarian or religiously rigid.

and we all know that it believes together, ethnic, sectarian and to the issues are very hard to have picked him. the same time i have to justify why the religion correspondent was talking about it. sometimes it's really more about economics or ethnicity. and it could just enflame issues if you talk about religion. religion is in some ways will being poured on the fire but it is now well started. and so this sort of -- i spend a lot of my be trying to define what was a religion story and what was not. the same time i was looking to find a way out of the box and talk about these interesting developments that you are referring to. so it is a difficult one to navigate. i think it's happening, but one of the problems with the shrinking of the religion beat and these experts who are watching what is going on in our world is that was nobody spot in the trend, if you don't have a religion correspondent they're reading and writing about and there's nobody seeing what is coming out.

and there's nobody really with the sort of expertise to figure out where things are heading. so i think it is a problem. when you have religion correspondent on the beach looking a, for instance, the gay bishop story, that, it almost came out of nowhere, and yet it didn't because some of us were reading about it, knew was going to happen, or able to respond in a different way. if you don't have experts out there, reading, talking to the experts really in my world would love to see more bridges built between reporters and the academy and policy experts to get everyone talking together and then reporters naturally reflect more of what is going on the world. i think that's why you need specialists are religion reporters. not saying they're the only voices. i'm not suggesting you need this authority figure reporting and all. it's great that there are more and more voices out there.

i do think that you do need some sort of abilities to contextualize, give new ones to a story in that it is one of those areas which is quite hard to accumulate, not that it was harder to be our religion correspondent. it's a different job. you are less reacting to daily news events handcrafting features and thinking about ways in which religion and spirituality is changing. >> thank you for wonderful presentation. there was so much concern about the business model of journalism and you talked about -- the broadcast, think the scene that

is funded in a nontraditional way. i was just wondering, is there a future for religion journalism moving forward? is there enough interest in non-traditional funding that would go into this kind of reporting? >> i think -- i mean, i have invested in it because it is produced by friends were coming out with great stories that i have long wanted to report on and they're giving me work. i should mention that. in fact a mile off to arizona next to talk about spirituality and health issues. mentor during dr. andrew while. and the cherokee madsen man who became friend of mine who is a fascinating man. widely read across different religious and spiritual traditions. so there is forum that they are

providing that was not necessarily provided in the old traditional newsroom setting. that's great for people who are interested in it. then i think it should be funded and it is being funded, and it's fabulous that is being funded, but it is difficult to raise money in this harsh environment. it is wonderful that there are endowments', lilly endowment and the ford foundation and loose and all of these organizations are becoming absolutely vital if we want this kind of coverage to continue. there are smaller founders in britain during the same thing. these broadcasts are done on a shoestring. they're not making the rich. i can tell you that, but it isn't rewarding and enriching in another way to do them. >> i will do one more. you know, you don't have to answer this, but i'm wondering whether you have thought about

the question of whether some religions get more or better coverage than others. i mean, are their religions that did more and better coverage and why? >> i guess i am talking from a western perspective. from my experience in the media here, but it is -- i think the coverage is changed, this traditionally been in the olden days at least quite rancho for christianity and the bbc, the section of the bbc that was the religion department, there were a lot of christian devotional programs put out. even on the news side of things with as a religion and news, it was and still to a certain extent is largely about christianity. that also reflects the audience and the domestic sphere because it is still quite a church audience that listens to that program. i would constantly be pushing the boundaries a little bit interested in covering different religions.

as i mentioned in my talk, as long has got a real beating in the press for a long time. i think and hope it is changed or abet, especially in the broadsheets and then the bbc, npr did interest in reporting from but it remains a big challenge for us because it remains to a certain extent in much of the media for an. people do try to the fit it into categories, this discord that does not fit it, and it was interesting to see western governments, the british government and after 77, the london bombings, the british government went out looking for the moderate forces of islam and tended to try to coopt certain groups which did not go down very well in various parts of the muslim community. also they felt, right, that's our ancestor. quite a traditional view of

women's rights. so there was an interesting process going on and the scratching of the head that continues. would like to see more full covers that gives all angles of the story. certainly his lawn became the news because of negative news events. it is much harder to get into initiatives that are happening within islam and between religions that are positive developments caused such that the common word initiative is happening. in the know that tony blair's fate foundation is involved in trying to encourage engagement as well as to look at the role of religion and foreign-policy, an area he believes has been under assessed for many years when people look to the ideologies and different economic circumstances but now looking a religious causes. now assured of the initiative was that all of these initiatives to bring in people together to talk religion, and that's very interesting but it's

quite hard to sell at a news story. [inaudible question] >> 9/11, the thing which has really given a boost to as long. but the truth of the matter is cantor and his book which is the bbc domestic religion coverage already shows in the early 1990's which question different groups, christian, not christian including islamic listeners and viewers ask questions like if you want more, what happens when they come on? it was always as long, which of all the religious sectors would say, no, we want more. so warning signals of you what about the demand for more is on

was well before 9/11. >> yes. >> have you read the report? >> quite. and there were some of those reporting live for 9/11. i mentioned this revolution and reform and a series i was during. a lot of other people were talking about it, but it just wasn't -- it was almost like an suddenly, the news editors of the top one vote -- unawares. playing catch-up which unfortunately happens quite a lot in a reactive environment in the media to more than it should be which is why i think it's great to have specialists because it can be less reactive and more proactive. >> we have time for one more -- to more -- 31. gene and then dennis. the man in the front. we will start over here to my left. >> i do research, the context. what i found intriguing is that

most of the time journalism is critical of religion. sometimes they do cover religion in a positive manner. and i found that they have a kind of expectation of religion, what religion can do for society can you tell me wonder more experiences were when you do cover religion and a positive manner and why you decided to do that. >> i did not set out with an agenda, this is a positive story, but there have been tragic stories out of which some very positive messages have come from communities, christian communities. a couple of instances i can think of. so we had the july 7th bombings in london, tragic events, the london underground bond and the london boss. indian man was killed in a london bus bombing.

and i approached his mother. and of course as a human being i felt a little bit reluctant to hear the woman in fall grief for only son. and yet i heard-she had had deep christian faith, the catholic cathedral that she attended gave me your number. i ask permission from her to get the number. and she gave them. this was within 24 hours of losing her son. the interview went out on the very -- on the morning news program on the bbc radio call today which is usually have very gladiatorial presenter verses politician three minutes of hard fighting over political issues of the day. this went out and about eight minutes and really stunned mainstream audiences and a lot

of editors because she talked in great depth and a huge heart about her son and about the impact the bombings on our family cost about her deep christian faith. and how she prayed for the bombers families. and it wasn't really, really moving and came out of something that was a tragic case. you could just a focused on here we go again and looking as sort of the natives of religion, but this was something that was very, very positive and moving. and then those sorts of situations when i was washington correspondent a few years ago, there was the tragic shootings in on this country in pennsylvania and lancaster county, and that was a fascinating example of the media rush, the hosts of the evening news channels were there.

satellite trucks parked. to world's colliding. we have all the satellite trucks and journalists standing their reporting. and in other words, that was a physical illustration of these two world's colliding, and also when you interview some of these families who have lost their children in a tragic shooting and they talked about forgiveness and the bible told them to believe in a certain approach that was, you forgive the families. it was moving, and it really was where things stood still for the secular media. no, this is religion in a different light. so, you know, i did not set out to say i would go positive religious story, but some events of those moments to unfold. you know, they were very moving to report on as well as to listen to, i think. >> i would like to give you an opportunity to return to his

question about whether some religions are treated differently in the media and are more difficult to cover. by way of background let me explain. i teach in the anthropology department in the research interlocken. so i have been aware that from a media point of view it is often very ironic and difficult for reporters to report from a place like sherlock which has produced violence with religious overtones to it that does not lead to conform to our stereotypes of religions. just two examples and i would like you to maybe offer comments the reason we conclude that civil war which concluded in 2009 was conducted by a rebel group called the ltte, the liberation tigers, and it was very often the case in the press that it was assumed that they were a religious group, that their cause was some kind of

religious protest. and it was assumed because well, they all must be hindus. iraqi some of the most powerful members of that gripper christian. many of the suicide bombers were christian, something that never really came out very much in any of the articles that are red. and more recently and we have to bring this up, i think buddhism always gets a very easy treatment in the press. it is the favre religion here in boulder, for sure. and yet as i think many in the romano, recently there has been a very militant religious conflict led by buddhist monks in places like burma and also in sherlock directed directly against the muslims. these are counter intuitive. and it simply there really are challenged. >> they are. >> to you have any reactions are observations or suggestions

about how they can be treated better? >> when you mentioned sri lanka i then thought of burma. and the way that buddhist monks have been inciting violence. and that has sharp to lot of people around the world of vegetarian peace-loving, gentle minutes of religion focus on raising one's consciousness and achieving enlightenment. of course the truth on the ground is often quite different. like everybody, news journalists have to catch up on the sometimes. that has certainly been the case in myanmar, burma. i think technically the bbc now calls permian more. but it is a challenge. you're right. quite often buddhism and hinduism can be given treatment,

though i remember reporting a lot on hinduism in india, the nationalist parties in the ultra-nationalist parties which give a very different face to hinduism so it is an ongoing challenge and i think it is right that some religions are possibly treated more gently than others. of course it also depends on where you're coming from and which media you're talking about, and there is an ongoing -- i mean this is not just purely religion. in america, is seen that israel is given more positive treatment in the press and that it is quite the opposite in europe. there is an ongoing issue about that. the bbc often has to find itself answering arguments and reports over whether it is reporting and the middle east and conflict in the middle east and the sectarian and religious and other overtones being fair and balanced which is an ongoing issue.

>> thank you for a lovely presentation. i just want test you on a practitioner's perspective. i worked as assistant producer and london. and it is hard to balance between the murder to drug moderate views and the extremists. i have been asked to do filch rant when inviting people. so what is your experience? comments about that balancing act? >> it is a difficult one, one faced by programs every day. especially when something happens in islam. some extremists, something happens. and then there is lots of

internal navel gazing among editorial staff, as to whether it is justified to call in the extremists who might have three followers to talk about that. then there is no clear line as to when you do that, but sometimes it is justified to call-in people. if something is happening within this year that he can talk about as long as you contextualize, as long as you basically say, this is not a guy without the million follows. the know, it is the sort of thing. is the context. context. as we discussed, it is difficult to apply these categories moderate and conservative or alter conservative and ultra-orthodox. it's confusing. different settings. so i think it is an ongoing challenge, but clearly the certainly i can talk from the bbc perspective always a real

effort to try to balance to be as impartial as possible when at the same time recognizing that we come with their own firms of reference and that it is an ongoing challenge to try to do that. >> on behalf of the attendees of the conference and the center for media, religion, and culture i wanted thank you and invite our audience to thank you. [applause] >> book tv in primetime. 8:00 eastern.

>> the beauty of america is that in this country we have the ability to write the script of our own life. we are and as sense and the driving seat of our own future. and our biggest decisions in life from a bios. america creates this sense of possibility and out of that you can become an activist, a community organizer, in essence, you are living off of a great capitalist explosion of wealth that you did not even create. >> so many strong men, it is hard to know where it began. no one said america is the most terrible place, but there are a couple of assertions that you have to take on faith that are astonishing. one is the ibm that americans great invention was wealth creation, not based on fact and

all. what about the theft of the entire continent. that does not mean -- [applause] 90% of their residents who lived here were murdered, and that was a part of it. >> a debate what is so great about america fried banana in:00 eastern on c-span2. >> to members of congress announced their retirement. not to fund not seeking reelection and told the new york times their is a certain level of dysfunction in congress. the congress even with these frustrations is the greatest testament for justice and human welfare in the world. california democratic representative announced that she will not take reelection after serving only one term. she says instead she is going to run for the san bernardino county board of supervisors. with that news of those retirements a total of 37 house

members are retiring. twenty-three republicans and 14 democrats. over in the senate five democrats and three republicans are calling it quits. >> under today's white house briefing press secretary jay carney said democrats will retain a majority in the senate despite november. >> your last, we are visa said you don't want to get too much involved believe that health care will be an asset. david axelrod agrees with you on the part of the story, with the new york times survey says he is concerned because others are spending $20 million on seven races and is concerned there democratic activists were too focused on 2016, too excited about that and of losing sight of the election. does the white house shared concern your fellow democrats are not focused enough on the fact of the president is control of the senate that would be a problem. >> again, this is not a campaign

briefing. i can tell you that the president is going to engage in do everything can to assist democrats running in 2014, but he is presently focused on an agenda that is designed to expand opporunity with the american people and destroyed finance expand the middle-class. >> that was live agenda, lose control of the senate, it will be hard to get that agenda through. >> the democratic party is an affront to lose control of the senate. that is precisely because of the policies that he and democrat support the focused on expanding opportunity as opposed repealing benefits that are focused on providing broad support for the middle-class so that it can become more secure and that more jobs are created as opposed to support for talked to a special interest tax loopholes that benefit the few.

that is sort of a general principle. and the president feels very strongly that that approach is one that, broadly speaking, the american people and support. >> you can see all of today's white house briefing with press secretary jay carney in just over an hour. and right now on c-span2, an update on north korean nuclear program. he will hear from the head of korean policy of the or house national security council. the deputy assistant secretary of defense for east asia. from the institute for korean-american studies, this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> it is quite ironic. and let you mentioned the fact and i was here four years ago. as people remember, four years ago to the day was still armageddon. i actually got stuck on my way

home for about an hour in the snow taking a back alley down somewhere in washington d.c. i will never forget the opportunity -- the other interesting thing, at the time it was a slow news week and. this presentation bear repeating coverage. blimpie but nothing else to do is stay home and watch a relatively boring, unexceptional speech at the time on the north korean nuclear program. i came as an intelligence analyst. come here anymore difficult head of the policy maker. i will try to scope my comments and resist the temptation to get into an over political peace. there is an all that is sickos you don't know where you going until you know where you have been. and when you deal of the difficult issues like north korea you face a challenge of having to set up policy

direction and a fine as set of guiding principles the undergird day to day decisions. the truth of this and is become strikingly clear. not too long ago i use the expression predictably and predictable in describing that pyongyang use of surprise as so ingrained in the it diplomatic playbook has to really no longer be surprising. so let me today suggest that for the policy maker north korea may be termed transparently opaque, transparently opaque. north korea is an actor whose efforts to use misty can surprise as diplomatic force multipliers are no -- are now so established as we no longer particularly mysterious. then find the 1990 to my career central broadcast system commentary on the revolutionary

exploits which terms of his political skills and as being mysterious beyond imagination having, it is no accident that even the enemies, the generals experienced political art the unpredictable and legendary. i would assert that after 20 years of diplomacy with the dprk and 40 years before that sustainable reactions that people forget when they look to the history. forty years of sustained interactions of to the point through the mechanisms of military armistice commission in the day-to-day interaction with the north koreans, that we have amassed sufficient empirical evidence to not be back where did by surprise, baffled by opacity are blinded by so-called -- such today what i would like to do is take a bit of a retrospective look as we examine the future of north korea and our policy within the context of where we have been and how that

impacts of fundamental principles of our policy in the direction of will head the future. nearly 99 is only first embarked on the most sustained interactions with mockery of following the armistice and outside the confines there is not much to look back on as our diplomatics blower possible ways ahead. negotiating records, we have not tests of their reliability in dependability to live up to agreements with the united states. so at this time this warranted moving forward with what would become the agreed framework, not on line to help, not on faith, but on what they called exploratory confidence-building principles or at test thereof. as you remember, the agreed framework in 1994, but following concerns are inconsistencies between number three in nuclear activities as they detected the

iaea in 1992 and the results of the iaea inspections of the inspectors go on the ground. the intent of the agreed framework was to bring a halt to the projection of fissile material and resolve the differences between the north korean declaration of 90 grams or so of plutonium obtained for reprocessing of what they claim to be a handful of damage your runs, but the initial iaea inspections yielded and estimates by analysts and observers that north korea may have actually produced enough plutonium for weapons. more fundamentally than one the immediate suggestion was it was to test. and what i would say is a critical point of confluence with three major strategic parks in this tree in north korea

reversed to the emergence of the demonstrated attempt and intense and ability to produce plus -- fissile material. a second being a power transition. the first of its kind. and finally the emergence of of post cold war world in north korea's resistance within that post cold war world. the north's nuclear ambitions were becoming clearer. the internal situation was in transition. aggressiveness, vulnerability, and uncertainty all intersected and onetime. the agreed framework halted plutonium production for nine years which is no small achievement. what went unchains were north korea's nuclear ambitions.

not carry an never allowed access to the facilities necessary to resolve the plutonium mandatory discrepancy. continued to design and test high explosives during the duration and by the in the 1990's it appears to have pursued a uranium enrichment program undeclared. the 2000's meanwhile witness the advent of the six party arab and aggressive and sustained diplomatic effort to define away for the verifiable and ultimately this would be captured in the september 19th 2005 joint statement. of course during these talks in spite of the fact that talks were under way north korea connected to reprocessing runs during the time of the six party

talks. north korea advanced the nuclear deterrent by declaring it was pursuing and then by showing dr. sagan packard bell less plutonium. of course the september 282004 announcement of opposition. even with the joint statement adoption in 2005 north korea went on to launch. they conducted its first nuclear test in october of 2006. we'll remember the destruction of the cooling tower that was eventually coming in june 2008, an important symbol of the progress being made on a sixth party talks on the settlement and is not of the reactor and associated facilities, particularly in the february 13th 2007 initial implementations. in the october 3rd 2007 statement covering second stage

actions. yet left unaddressed was the issue of getting north korea to discuss its continued on the cleared uranium enrichment activity or how we would get the verification necessary to address the remaining questions concerning the north plutonium and uranium enrichment program. some of this is old history, but this retrospective work is valuable because it provides the context within which the administration viewed the north korean nuclear issue when inherited it upon taking office in 2009. as you remember, the president took office well into extend his answer countries like north korea as they would be willing to a lunch @booktv plans surfaced. within weeks after the inauguration of president obama it became -- north korea proceed

to conduct a nuclear test, again, just months after the obama administration took office a second nuclear test had a profound impact on those people who were the -- they believe that the nuclear ambitions were no more than some high-tech way to grab the attention of the united states. the seriousness with which the world view the actions and its intentions were evidenced in the security council adoption of security council resolution on june 12. the international consensus crew on the need to impede the growth of north korean w. envy program and in fact a cost on that program with strong enforcement mechanisms complementing united nations security council resolution 718 ..

in an effort to get some type of dialogue jump-started with the dprk. a few months later north korea again took an action that figuratively sank the prospects for resumed talks and literally sank the rock -- in march 2010.

after demon straight to the world its uranium enrichment capables, as steve and i were going to the region, we went to seoul, tokyo, beijing, and brief our six-party talks on the uranium enrichment program. the island was shelled by the north koreans. then 2011 came upon us. after the dust settled from the provocations we embarked on an effort to test north korea's willingness to engage in negotiations again, another test, to see whether the north koreans could engage in negotiations with a seriousness of purpose. in close consultations with our allies in seoul and tokyo and in coordination with our other six-party partners in beijing and moscow, we cautiously began in 2011 to engage north korea in a series of meetings designed to

bring a halts to its nuclear program and missile launchers, and in our effort to restart six-party talks create an environment con con doessive to such talks. after three meetings, after a the death of imjung ill. we we -- an understanding we would pursue a path of confidence, building measures, which would begin with the north halting the missile launches and nuclear activities and would be reciprocated by confidence building measures on our own, and yet, again, barely two weeks after this test was administered, north korea announced it would proceed with a self-proclaimed satellite launch in clear violation, not only of unatees nations security

council resolutions banning such launches using ballistic missile technology, and clearly a violation of our understanding. the february 29th deal was a test just like the september 19th statements. these three tests may have been different in terms of the speed with which they were failed. the significance of this action, so soon in the era of north korea's new leadership in terms of the february 29th february 29th understanding, was not particularly encouraging as to the prospects for authentic and credible negotiations. most importantly, for us, february 29th demonstrated that north korea was not yet prepared to engage in negotiations with a seriousness of purpose necessary to ensure that negotiations would result in concrete denuclearization process. so, february 29th, 20 st. as

you know -- and as north korea watched elections and political activities in those three capitols, it began for another series of actions which commenced in december with another tabled. followed with the nuclear test the next year, 2013, followed bay period of intense rhetoric and vitriol. so, the question then, how are we responding? what should the future look like in light of this mass empirical evidence about north koreans intentions and growing capabilities. well, first of all, our north korea policy is focused on two primary goals, deterrence and denuclearization. many of you are here for my colleague's presentation, and

i'm sure he touched on a range of activities that we do within the context of the alliance, our extended deterrence strategy, our joint exercises, our planning under the variety of mechanisms that we have that feed our ministerial led security consult cobb -- consult ative meetings, how we develop a doctrine and train to counter the emerging threat and contingencies posed by north korea. the u.s. has, together with its close ally, the republic of korea, ensured peace and stability on the korean peninsula for 60 years. the alliance is strong and will continue to be strong. we have no doubt about that. on the denuclearization side, i thought i'd sarah few principles in terms of our diplomacy and

our policy. you heard it said before, but it's one of those statements that needs repeating, perhaps every month or so, at least. the united states will not accept north koreays nuclear state, no will we stand by while it develops a missile that can target the united states. it's worth noting that the international community agrees with the series of unites nations security council resolutions calling on the dprk to deny clearize. the result of three nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, and 2013, is the international consensus, the undeniable consensus, on the need nor north korea to denuclearize. in pursuit of denuclearization a number of principles guide our policy. first is the centrality of-under allies, traditional alliances both with the republic of korea

and japan. our dprk policy is founded upon closed and transparent and continuous cooperation with our ago lice, glen davies and i and our team go out regularly to the region, and close continuous coordination. pyongyang's effort to drive a wedge between seoul and washington and washington and tokyo, will not succeed. because at the end of the day, i think you see this very clearly evidenced in the north korea policies of our allies -- we're not the only country that has learn the lessons of history that i just spoke to. second element is our close cooperation with beijing. united states and china agree on the fundamental importance of denuclearized korean peninsula. we share common goals of peace and stability on the peninsula and its denuclearization. we have open lines of

communication and typically consult with china how to advance our common goals. we see u.s.-china cooperation as critical to -- and negotiate complete and irreversible denuclearization. and in this regard, china is aviatal partner of the dprk with a unique role due to its ties to north korea. the third principle, the principle of no rewards. the united states will not reward bad north korea behavior, it's provocations, its rhetoric and its refusal to denuclearize will increase economic and political isolation, the security and prosperity they seek will only come when pyongyang changes its course. it will not be rewarded for bad behavior. fourth principle is that of defense and deterrence. i spoke about it briefly earlier there should be no doubt that the united states will continue

to take actions in our defense and that of our allies. this includes maintaining a robust sanctions regime on pong -- pyongyang, and the threat that we face. fifth principle is to maintain an alternative path. as we said repeatedly, the united states will continue to encourage north korea to choose a better path. we remain committed to a diplomatic solution, a diplomatic solution based upon authentic and credible negotiations leading to concrete denuclearization action. the united states is prepared to help north korea change its current course. the united states is prepared to sit down with north korea to negotiate and implement the commitments they have made, for pyongyang must take meaningful

steps to show it has an intention to abide bid it commitments, honor its words and engage authentic negotiations. and finally -- this may be considered a bottom line -- we will judge north korea by its actions and not by its words. this is more than a talk point. it's really in a nutshell the prudent lesson of the years of dealing with the dprk, which i spoke about earlier. so here the challenge before us is clear. north korea in may 2013 announced a so-called policy that seeks to pursue in tandem economic construction, and the growth of its nuclear forces. now, one could argue convincingly issue think, for the past two decades, of the north's nuclear program, pyongyang has pursued a policy that sawing economic gain and dodging the denuclearization

responsibilities. actually it's party level strategic policy line clarity into pyongyang's overarching strategic goal but at my colleague has noted a number of times, it's a dead-end policy. in this regard scott snyder wrote a useful piece, the economic cost to north korea nuclear development. i recommend that highly to those of you who have not seen it. former deputy commander of prcs military region, in an essay submitted to the -- forgive pronumbersation on that -- entitled north korea dunuclearization is more in accordance with chinese. >> s, and noted north korea's -- difficult to advance, nuclear weapons invites international condemnation, isolation and sanctions, leaving north korea

unable to assessed a vanned technology and aid for human, financial and physical resources. this makes opening up to the rest of the world difficult to achieve real results and leaves internal reform lacking and relaxed political, economic and social environment. the general notes delivery methods uses a lot of resources and the military uses a lot amount of resources. from a resources perspectivety this reduces the strength of progress. he concludes for the stability of the peninsula, and northeast asia, china must utilize all its political, diplomatic, economic, governmental and nongovernmental research to convince north korea to abandon nuclear weapons and this is the united states' policy as well. in this way -- i say this in

closing -- it essentially provides an opportunity to sharpen north korea's choices to remind north korea that the security and prosperity it sexes are only possible through denuclearization, reminder that the policy decisions the regime has been making will only continue to lead to greater diplomatic and economic isolation and deprivation. to remind pyongyang that the dpr ks pursuit of nuclear weapons makes the country less secure, and less prosperous, and to remember that the true victims of north korea ya nuclear program are the north korean people and the peace and prosperity they desire and deserve. thank you. [applause] >> now the floor will be opened. >> it was a great historical overview which i think is

critically important for all of us to understand and with that, understanding the history, we are at a new point with the young leader with kim jong-un and i wonder if you can talk about your assessment of the stability of his leadership and if he is going through the transition period is still continue and has not stabilized his loadership, what are the chances for things going down the wrong road, and then if and when he is in a stable position, do you assess that he will continue to follow the same path as you have outlined, which i really do like this transparent, opaque -- transparently opaque policy, which i think is a useful description. so if you could talk about the leadership stability, i'd appreciate it. >> dave, it's not very prudent

to predict the future, but that said, what we see in terms of -- if you look -- the reason i did this historical overview is to show the continuity of some of these trends over time, and to kind of understand that what we have seen in terms of the actions of the dprk over the past few years, being entirely consistent with behavior that goes back two leaders, to kims ago, and in that regard, we -- there's a degree to which the continuity provides the sufficient framework within which to make smart policy, and that's why i use the transparently opaque formulation, to kind of get over this idea that somehow north korea's a country that nobody really understands, and we don't know what they're going to do next and, therefore, we're somehow handcuffed from a policy

perspective. we have sufficient understanding of the dprk to make solid policy. the transition period is underway. it's an evolutionary process. again, if you take a step back and you look at the events of the past two years, within the larger arc of where things were going when kim jong-un inherited the challenge, is no inconsistencies or anomalies that would cause us to think that we are somehow not sufficiently aware of the direction the regime is headed with its goals and intentions. now, that said -- this is why i spoke about the opportunities that the agreement provides because the core of our policy has been one of sharpening choices for the dprk to make clear that when the dprk is

ready to commit to authentic and credible negotiations that have a serious possibility of leading to concrete denuclearization steps, the other five parties, to include the united states, are prepared to live up to their obligationness the september 19th statement, and fundamentally transformed future is available for the dprk if it makes the right choice. also to be diligent and committed to sanctions and other actions we need to take in our defense and that of our allies, to make sure that north korea knows its program cannot continue to grow unabated; that there's a diplomatic and economic price to be paid for the policy choices it makes and, therefore, to understand the downside options in that sharpening choices strategy. so regardless of the direction the dprk heads under its leadership, these principles

apply equally. >> thank you. >> i agree with everything you said. i wonder, though, about our actions. i agree that north korea has had a playbook they have been following for 60 years, and -- but when we act differently and -- than we have in the past, it affects north korea. as an example, last year's tensions during the exercise period last spring, our reaction -- the alliance reaction was very, very strong, unlike it has been in the past, and i think that surprised north korea, and i say that because -- as you said, the alliance is strong, and the alliance provides the foundation for everything that we do. and i wanted to shift gears a little bit and ask about

president park's policy and how that fits in with our policy supporting her and i think the importance of her policy or the ability of her policy to succeed also rests on the strength of the alliance, but i wonder if you could talk about the relationship of our policy and president park's trust policy. >> dave, absolutely. this is an area in which our two countries have had very close and continuous cooperation, even before the election, when we first reached out to the political camps during the campaign. it was clear that president park's trust policy was built upon many of the same foundational principles that we had. flexibility to talk, to explore, to probe, but a strong commitment to denuclearization, clear linkage that negotiations that resulted in substantial

progress in u.s.-dprk relations would have to be founded possible progress in denuclearization, and this tracks with the president's willingness to engage the north and test the north to allow human tarrianed a to go--- -- humanitarian aid and also hole the north koreans responsible. and we have a partnership that i would argue many people -- and i came onboard roughly three years ago, just on the eve of the president's state visit, when they saw the improvement of relations under president lee, attributed to perhaps personalities or commitment of president lee to the us-rk relationship, and the rok ashines is so built ban shared interest and shared values and the share approach to a common threat, that it's enduring,

regardless who is in charge. so even more so, when you have president pak with her current policies. >> whenever i hear an administration official -- this goes back into the bush administration, not just the current administration -- talk about north korea or read statements in the newspapers coming from u.s. officials, there is a topic that hard ever gets mentioned, and if it is mentioned, it's mentioned only in passing. that is north korea crazy proliferation activities,

particularly in the middle east, and i have seen -- i've written about -- literally hundreds of published reports quoting european intelligence sources, israely intelligence sources, and japanese intelligence sources, describing a deep collaborative relationship between iran and north korea in both the development of missiles and the development of nuclear warheads. the latest of these reports described in the south korean official was quoted in one of these. iran sending top missile experts to north korea in the second half of 2012, who assisted north korea in preparing for the

successful long-range missile test of december 2012. and reports that iran made handsome sum of money to north korea to send a high level delegation of nuclear experts to the february 2013 nuclear test, but as i said, this is kind of the unwritten, untalked-about problem that i think, given all of the information that has come out in recent years, that there is with north korea this deep involvement between north korea and iran. we also have the wikileaks documents describing how secretary rice instructed our

ambassador in beijing to protest strongly to the chinese government, over aircraft from tehran and pyongyang unloading people and apparently weapons in beijing's airport and transferring these between these aircraft. from tehran and from pyongyang. a diplomatic effort which apparently bore no fruit. so i'm going to ask you, mr. seiler, if you can tell us anything about this north korean-iranian relationship, and what is the substance of it, if you can say anything about that. i know there are intelligence sensitivities here but how much of a problem is this going to be in any future diplomatic intercourse with north korea on

the nuclear issue? >> thank you. those are excellent questions. difficult questions because they do touch very directly and very really on some of our more sensitive intelligence as well as our more sensitive diplomatic activities in our efforts to try to halt, prevent, roll back, north korea ya outward proliferation and as well as, not surprisingly, the proliferation of technology into north korea. this is a central purpose of the entire range of united nations security council resolution derived sanctions and other sanctions we put on north korea to not only impede the growth of the north korean nuclear program to the import of technology and that the cash it earns, but actually to prevent the outward movement of those technologies. in this regard, let me just say a number of principles.

first of all, proliferation is obviously a key top interest of this administration and any administration. we know the threat that we face, the danger we face, and north korea's established record of willingness to engage in this type of activity, is known to everybody in this room. it's a top priority issue when we sit down with the north koreans, when we talk about -- when we had the february 29th february 29th deal and the six-party talks, whenever we engage with the north koreans, this is a top priority. at it also an area in which our international cooperation has grown markedly, particularly since the 2009 nuclear test and the 2012 and 2013 activities. we partner with a number of countries, china included, in a way that helps to deal both with the flow of materiale, whether

sea, air, land-based, as well as the related finances. that's as far as i can take a public answer but certainly one that is of paramount concern to us. thank you. >> that was a fascinating and depressing history lesson you gave us on how many times north korea has violated its international obligations. you stated that we should judge north korea not on its statements but on its actions, and it seems to me the same standard ought to be applied to our negotiating partner, china, because china continually uses the language that you used about opposing nuclearization, and yet it has participated in north korea's program beyond what larry said. it was also involved in the original proliferation to pakistan, which ended up in north korea. one could make the case that

china is not only a proliferator of wmd, it's a proliferator of proliferators. it has spread to the middle east and in asia. so, i would respectfully question the assumption of the u.s. government policy, or at least stated u.s. government policy, that china shares our goal or objective of denuclearization of -- on the korean peninsula. i would submit that china's number one priority is not north korea's nuclear program, but north korea's economic stability, and rather than taking actions that would put pressure on the north korean regime, they would rather let it proceed as long as they remain a

buffer between south korea and china, and it requires a little hospitale in our public diplomacy, secretary kerry today -- yesterday reiterated that a year ago, china made all these commitments to increase the pressure on north korea. the only pressure it has increased is rhetorical. hardlien in tangible efforts. and yet the north korean regime would collapse tomorrow if china were to tighten any of its sanctions on fuel and energy and the economic, let alone diplomatic protection. so seems to the the elephant in the room we don't want to discuss, is that china has been a facilitator of the north korea n threat and we should question its motives in doing so. >> well, i don't really want to be a spokesman for the peoples republic of china but let me speak to elements of our cooperation.

having the privilege of flying out to beijing once every couple of months or so, and being very in depth productive work on this with the six-party talks, lead negotiator way, and our colleagues here at the embassy in china, china publicly articulates denuclearization of the korean peninsula and its desire for peace and stability on the peninsula and in northeast asia, which both of those clear your lap with the interests and desires of all the parties in the region, the united states, republic of korea as well. the prc has been a cooperative partner in the united nations and has been a enforcing security council resolution as have other parties. it has put a lot of work into the six-party talks process.

the february 19th joint statement from 2005, and all the diplomatic efforts that have taken place since then over the last nine years. this is a difficult issue. i think it's an issue that many times, when we sit down and try to brainstorm over what -- where is the solution to this, what are we failing to do sunset what are we failing to find? we all um matily need to step back and remember, it's pyongyang who is the party that is refusing to denuclearize, pyongyang is refusing to return to authentic and credible negotiations. as you mention the prc has a unique relationship, and we work very closely with the peoples republic of china on this issue. this is an issue that did not come up overnight, nor will it be resolved overnight, but is an area that we feel strongly committed to. i think this is our two leaders

discussed this at the summit in st. petersburg, the vice president when he visited, and most recently secretary kerry, and we continue to believe that resolution of this issue depends upon sustained efforts to cooperate with china on this. >> thank you. >> thank you. i have a question on south korea. in recent days, the attitude of north korea to the south korea is changing. as you know, south korea and north korea agreed yesterday to hold reunions of separated families.

it is scheduled. the joint exercise of -- so, my question is, do you think there are changes of north korea strategical or tactical? and the second is that, do you feel any attitude change of north korea to the united states in recent days, the same as to the south korea? thank you. >> very good question. of course we welcome the news that name overnight about the willingness of pyongyang to go forward with the family reunions in spite of the fact there is a small overlap with our annual

exercises. it's encouraging to see pyongyang recognizes this as a humanitarian issue that need not be tied to these exercises. look back at the korean diplomacy, six-party talks, the conduct of these exercises is not necessarily a diplomacy-blocking type of event, but indeed during past periods like this because they're entirely defensive exercises, come annually, and actually overlap with the north korean training cycle. there's no inherent linkage between them and the able to hold family reunions and this is where, at the risk of sounding trite but so crucial, weed in to judge north korea by its actions and not by its words.

we have seen tactical shifts like this, and while we remain cautiously optimistic, we also are very realistic in terms of what this means, of the prospect for sustained, real, substantive, interkorean -- a possibility that north korea is beginning to turn the corner on its more bellicose rhetoric and action, and hopefully they'll soon see the value of returning to authentic and credible denuclearization negotiations. >> thank you. >> follow up on the question, most korean show -- negotiation

with united states. [inaudible] two koreas meeting over nuclear problem, would you illuminate that? >> in terms of the signal that the dprk may or may not have sent in terms of the willingness to engage denuclearization negotiations we have not seen anything that clearly signals they are prepared at this point. we know they made a national defense commission statement last summer, june. of course the more recent -- the important proposal, but none of this do we see in the indication that north korea is interested in denuclearization talks at

this time. of course we remain open to that. the united states remains open to authentic and credible dialogue, and hope that the positives that pyongyang may be sending in agreeing to move forward with the family reunions, represents a type of shift in their attitude and behavior we have all been waiting for. >> peter? >> i'm with korean freedom alliance. i wonder if i'm alone -- i'm pessimistic about north korean nuclear issue. i had great time actually crossing with mr. siler as a north korean analyst and myself

some time ago and that was a really -- so glad to be with him again. you described many things, many good things, like u.s.-south korea alliance, and we are not going to get into any talks for the sake of talks and so on. but looks like when you say that we're not going to talk unless you are ready to talk seriously, we keep wasting or time, looks like. in fact, the current getting together, easing tension in korea about getting -- i keep losing some words -- getting the

-- yeah, getting the north and south korea, separated families getting together. that's good news. but that doesn't give me any hope about the nuclear issue. no matter what subject comes up, this is going to -- we keep losing time. we are waiting until north korea accomplishes capability to reach alaska and beyond, and i don't see anything else is going at this point. so, could you kind of help me relax on my concern? >> thank you. tried to frame my presentation -- although i didn't give extreme good amount of attention to the first part of it, but to this idea of deterrence and denuclearization efforts, and in terms of deterrence, these are the prudent steps we need to take as north korea makes as its

strategic goal the nuclear force and increased capabilities and open the threatens us with them, we would take the due diligence that dave discussed a lot of the areas of activity we're taking in terms of missile defense, extended deterrence, the entirety of our discussion with rok on the alliance, and not only that, our tri-lateral cooperation in the region with japan is crucial on this. japan is a partner in miss -- and missile defense is crucial. in essence we deny north korea the value of its so-called nuclear deterrent by making it irrelevant in light of our ability to counter it. taking it sear seriously, not irrelevant in a way to ignore but being sufficiently postured to deter and defend as necessary

in light of this emerging capability. what many people -- the second part of my discussions, which maybe i should have developed a bit more, but if you look at this with some going of understanding of the history where we have been, talks in and of themselves have no inherent value, particularly in slowing the program, without the type of actions, like sanctions, counter-proliferation, activities, and continued pressure necessary to ensure that north korea pays a price for its program. just simply talking for the sake of talks isn't necessarily getting you -- doesn't necessarily slow in the -- slow the program. so people are inclined to look at the status of the dialogue and say, in the absence of dialogue, the program is greg. -- is growing, and they make a

false causal relationship there that i just -- i find it hard to accept. we want to have dialogue that leads to concrete denuclearization steps. we had dialogue that with the first and second phase action statements of 2007, led to a disablement of the five mega watt reactor and disablement opt the reprocessing facility, led to the collapse of the cooling tower. we were on a path toward a reduced, at least quantitative in terms of plutonium inventory path, and yet north korea, at its will, broke out of it and now has taken steps to restart its plutonium program and its uranium enrichment program continues on. i appreciate the frustration. that's why we see sense of urgency and do continue with a relatively robust pace of

denuclearization diplomacy, particularly with our prc colleagues, our allies in seoul and tokyo and with russia as well. >> thank you. guy, you have something on your mind? come to the microphone, please. >> thank you very much for your excellent presentation. i was glad to learn that you studied very much the history of the conflict and are well aware of the fact that it's -- the current situation is a result of many loose ends, and as you put it, our policy now is sharpening dpr ks choices, but i think we already know that they will pick nuclear over economic

improvement because we've seen they're willing to let millions die of starvation before letting up on their regime. so, i want to ask whether this avenue of pressure could be considered. it would probably have to come from the ngo community as opposed to a state, but to press for the indictment of kim jong-un by the international criminal court based on the jurisdiction that the republic of korea encompasses the full korean peninsula as it states in its constitution. and of course, that is one of the examples of the loose ends

from the unresolved conflict, and i can't imagine any other nonkinetic tool of pressure to have greater effect on kim jong-un than the prospect of criminal prosecution based on the notion that dprk shouldn't even exist. what do you think about that as something to try to bring something new in terms of pressure and to shake up the stakes more? because, frankly, what is he going to do in response to that? there's not much he can do. but he'll learn very quickly that he is not getting anywhere with the game he has been playing and his predecessors have been playing. >> thank you very much.

>> interesting question. let me start by saying, of course, that sometimes in the course of our focus on the denuclearization issue -- and this is somewhat because we have two special -- we have a special envoy, bob king, who is dedicated to human rights issue, and a special representative, glen davies, who looks at the larger, broader north korea policy, that at times people forget as we talk about uranium enrichment and plutonium and warheads and missiles and proliferation -- of the plight of the people of north korea, and that's absolutely not the case in the white house as we looked at this issue holistic include. we continue to be concerned about the human rights situation in the dprk. we continue to want to work to bring the north korean people

the same peace and prosperity and freedom and respect for human dignity that their brothers and sisters in the south enjoy. there's a sense -- again, when you look at the broader arc of history, that the forces, the trends of history, are inevitable. the president spoke to this in his speech at the university of foreign studies during this state visit. the vice president touched on this in his own speech during this december visit. on our support in particular for president pak,'s unification strategy -- which themselves are driven by desire that the north korean people would one day be free of the situation that they're in right now. we will continue to create an environment -- we believe that

we have put on the table in our diplomatic approach an alternative path for the leadership of pyongyang to choose. i don't want to prejudge the leadership. it's a relatively new leadership. there are paths before it, and there are conditions we can create to lead them down that proper path, and i think that's what we continue to need to do. i encourage in particular ngos who have an interest in the north korean human rights issue to keep that front and center. i believe that, as in the case we saw with the authoritarian regimes in the past, voices from the outside matter. they're encouraging to the people. perhaps that's even more important than whether they actually cause the leader to change his attitude when he or she wakes up in the morning, butter i think this is the right -- but i think this is the right thing to do and we'll continue to put the focus we have on the human rights issue,

continuing going forward >> well, i'm very new in this field. i'm retired, studied ancient history. the question to mr. seiler, you view the history of north korea -- >> no ancient history, okay? >> did you see anything in the first kim, end of second kim took over power from his -- what i meant, mr. kim senior, he thought there's no way we can fight anymore. that's good for negotiations, economic development.

son doesn't like it. kill him. take over. same thing happen and realize it doesn't work. have to do something. mr. chang stood up, economic -- now young -- so, look at that issue. second, in future policy direction, you see -- you know enemy, you can beat him. we cannot involve politic too much, but korea constitution that korean peninsula is all theirs. they have great power or control what happen without any legal obligation. so, let them set up policy,

whole korean peninsula, that america oversee the state behind their guideline. let be the sole government be direction, which chinese government also now will have taken more action, we cannot do anything. so those two questions. one for the direction of the policy. thank you. >> this may bring me close to the borderline i said i wouldn't cross moving from policymaker to analyst. it's an interesting question. i think the challenge with understanding north korea's motivations in 1994 as to why we moved into a period, just up to the death of kim il-sung, a period where north korea put its

nuclear program under wraps, as it were. froze its plutonium production until the reprocessing campaign of 2003, and engaged in a diplomatic effort to improve relations with the united states, and there's a variety of opinions on that, who believe it was a sincere effort to try to explore a post cold war world in which there are better u.s.-dprk relations. some people say that the nuclear deterrent was insufficient to protect it from the forces of history that appeared to be unfolding and thought that a diplomatic approach with the united states was the best way to guard against that. i think it's all very speculative, but the challenge that we face is the regime's

inherent perceptions of the world in which it lives. its world view, as i call it, and we have tried many things in the six-party talks process, in terms of discussions on security assurances. in fact the whole six-party talks process provide a very hospitable diplomatic environment. as the dprk we're concern about hostile forces from throughout threatening the regime's existence. it has been a diplomatic environment there were six-party talks that should be very reassuring that the security it has, it desires, can certainly be strengthened by pursuing the path of denuclearization, but it's -- the regime lacks

confidence in that, and we need to continue to try our efforts to remind the regime there is an alternative path, the true security it seeks is not in nuclear weapons and that is going to be a process that, if there is a transformation in north korea, under the new leadership, that by our sharpening choices approach, we can continue to send that message, can continue to provide that alternative path, can continue to demonstrate our willingness, as president obama said to reach out his hand to those who will unclench their fists. your second question, think the transformational potential that lies in the ro and its policy toward north korea is imminently understood by president pak. it's been at the hart -- at the

heart of her policy and the driver for her more recent emphasis on unification, preparing the korean people to november down the path that all 70 million korean people have as their aspiration, and i think that there's been some legitimate questions that you have raised. i don't think it's worth exploring aft this time, considering the sensitivities of some of the details, but what is clear is that, as pyongyang looks at the surrounding environment, it should see a number of countries that are willing, ready, to help it pursue a different path when it makes strategic choices that we are calling it to make. thank you.

>> thank you for your talk. a two-part question, actually. the way you have outlined the current approach in policy -- i think regardless of whether the people agree or not, it makes sense. there's a rational, logic, and we should try any approach possible to try to solve this problem. the question of clarification. meanwhile, the north is engaged in developing its nuclear missile capables. does that mean that this current approach and policy we believe that time is on our side, that we can wait however long it takes, whether it's years or months or decades, for north korea to show this credible step, the credible actions. the first question is, is time on our -- the assessment that

has form lated into this policy calculation? and the second question is, the rok -- part of a pillar of their current policy is -- one principle is to try to induce the north to change its behavior actions, or change in general, and i imagine that this view or this principle is shared with the other five parties just based on looking at the different coordinations i've seen happening among the five parties. other than the sanctions tool, how else can we try to induce a behavioral action change from the north without having direct contact with them? however way you want to define contact. thank you. >> two great questions. in the pursuit of the policy principles i discussed, i would

probably urge people not to characterize it or to assume that we see time as on our side. in fact we see this issue as necessitating a sense of urgency. we articulated that with our fellow six-party talks partners. and returning to talks with no likely concrete due -- denuclearization casks but the sense of urgency of making the clear choices to north korea, and at this point in particular, following the events -- the internal events in north korea, as a new leadership, maps out its future path that we're consistent and principled in the choices we provide. it is a principled approach, sustained approach and it's one that isn't one of strategic

patient. we've never said time is on our side. in fact just the opposite is true. but we do believe that together with the other partners and the international community, the unite is nations security council resolutions, we can begin to bring north korea to the conclusion that it has a better future through denuclearization, and that is the path that we continue to believe is best not to reenforce past bad behavior but to induce the behavioral change you mentioned, the policy goal of president pak and the republic of korea. i do believe that beyond the sanctions and the kind of specific actions that we can put in place, again the -- north korea stated policy that it's going to continue to pursue its nuclear weapons in spite of its

international obligations, in spite of the international community consensus that the north should denuclearize, it will continue down this path while pursuing economic recovery. the international community needs to be decisive and resolute in sending a strong message to pyongyang that it simply is not possible. ...