washington dc hosted by the anti-defamation league. that is tonight at 11:45 on c-span2. up next on c-span, from "washington journal" a look at recent events in north korea and what they suggest about the leader of the ruling party. that is followed by a discussion of concussions in youth's warts. and then, adam hochschild on "q&a." director of the wilson center history and public policy program and an expert on north korea. thank you for being with us this morning. the party congress has ended. the first one since 1980. what was the significance of this session? what does it mean for the current leader?

guest: after a very rough 36 years, the death of two leaders, the collapse of the socialist isolation,lso had international sanctions, and famine ofifying several hundred thousand people perishing. they're are looking to show development in the economy and of course the ability to develop nuclear weapons. host: how is the economy functioning? >> muddling along. of course it's rather subjective what constitutes success.

as long as they can provide basic necessities, to them that is a success. host: let's go to the map a look at the location of north korea and its order with china. does the leader there consider ?hina a close ally in how would you define that relationship? guest: this is an excellent question. decades west seven can see that there is a profound parts chinatrust and north korea. we know this because we have gotten into the diplomatic archives of their former communist allies. you can see that throughout this time there have been moments where they felt the china was being overly interventionist. chinesesee that the

were not always respectful of the north korean sovereignty. they are very sensitive to this. you can see it in the conversations they have had with ther officials throughout world, communist and not communist, they are describing this over and over again and it's to the point where today again there is this profound sense of mistrust towards beijing. from my reading, if we were to ask china to use its influence over north korea, asking them to do precisely what they most resent. to be sure there is leverage through their economic support and they have more access, but we only need to look at this in another perspective. we'll need to consider how much influence this will have. there is the historical animosity and historical tension . does theirh leverage

economic support to north korea really provide? let's look at the south korea relationship in the 50's and 60's. on us, butependent it didn't give us the ability to at will impose robert -- korea andnd south taiwan. there are limits to economic leverage when trying to influence the policies of a protege ally. this is a story from "the leasesn." "north korea unretouched photo of kim jong-un." they very much want to control the images of the leaders, something we sought to the 60's, 70's, 80's. guest: absolutely. they have the monolithic ideological system, something

that was highlighted a lot during the recent congress. this is something that goes back to the 1960's. that's when it was introduced. the idea was to make the word of the sovereign, whichever is in power, absolute. so, all power is consolidated in the hands of the kim family. it's not unusual that they would release this unredacted picture of him. clear what wetty saw, they are reinforcing the position of the kim family, showing that kim jong-un is

totally in control and that this is his era, simply putting his stamp on the system. host: explain what happened with his uncle and what was clearly an execution style murder of him. guest: absolutely. one thing, you have to go back decades to really understand the whole context of this. right up to the introduction of this monolithic ideological system you had to book ending events. there was criticism within the party. there was still pluralism within the workers party. the grandfather of kim jong-un. on the other side, you had other individuals with different

backgrounds. tolerantn was not so of different ideas. he perceived any idea that was different from his as a threat to his national security. in the 1950's, he dealt with this by purging these people and labeling them factionalism. policies at stake, but the solution was to label them and purge them. when this happened a second time in 1967, and in both cases, the debate in the party was about economics. happened the second 1966-1967, they were labeled and created the system to prevent, again to eliminate pluralism and prevent it from happening again. it mandated ideological.

. purity. unclehat we can see, the policies ofing the like those much incidences in the 1950's and 1960's. counseling -- he was challenging- he was economic reform. north korea would have controlled openings and eventually adopt a market economy. this challenged the imperatives regime, andun, the

he eliminated him. and the mind of kim jong-un, he had to be eliminated. he was perceived to be that great of a threat that even in isolation, he would have still because the uncle had established a network. host: his own uncle? guest: it is harsh. and it is unprecedented. he --very quickly, how is guest: there were these silly rumors about dogs. but my understanding is that he .as executed with a gun but i am not entirely certain. host: our phone lines are open for james person for the wilson center. our phone lines are 202-748-8000 .

also 202-748-8001. a messageso send us on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. -- thisture does get picture gives you a sense of north korea and south korea and china at night and how desolate because of can be its lack of infrastructure. you look at this photograph, is it still relevant today? guest: one of the major focus of pledged thengress, restoration and the electoral grid. it is still relevant. there have been a number of efforts over the last few years to make some slight improvements. trip, the electricity

went out one time whereas my previous trip, it went on a number of times. , maybe onet outside -- inof light in that one the capital is relevant. when you do get to the countryside, it is desperately, desperately poor. you are often rely on generators for a few hours of electricity a day. host: let's go to bob from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i am about to say something that will upset a lot of americans. north korea, it is what it is today because so many u.s. policy. up until world war ii when japan

attacked pearl harbor and u.s.,d a war with the korea was calling up to japan since 1910. the u.s. did not care whether .orea it was only when japan got more greedy and try to take over china is when the u.s. and the west started to put a sanction on japan that caused the war with japan. ii,r that, after world war then also, the u.s. did not care much about korea. they had japan. so they were content with that. , i mean korea, that was an afterthought. they were more than happy to divide it up into north and

south. it gave the son a perfect opportunity to exploit the underion to try to unite their dictatorship, which he failed to do. bob, thank you for the call. we will give our guests a chance to respond. mr. person? disagree to some degree with much of what the caller suggested. documentation that we are ,etting from various archives

from u.s. archives, korea archives etc., don't support that entirely. peninsula,n of the was to be a temporary measure. expediencytter of that because you had already the soviet in forces advancing on the korean peninsula, u.s. forces were not yet in the area -- could not prevent this that the soviet forces from occupying the entire peninsula. had the proposal not been made to divide the peninsula temporarily at the 30th parallel. unfortunately, what led to the , there was aision decision in -- you had this

-- you that this soviet/u.s. joint commission on met fromn peninsula 46, 47. was the soviet insistence to only consult those political parties operating in korea that of ad to the existence trusteeship over the korean thensula that really led to breakdown of the commissions' work and the establishment of two flow rivalry regimes -- two rivalry regimes on the peninsula. according to a soviet proposal, the only party that could have an consulted and made part of this government, established

process would have been the communist party. the u.s. would not agree to this. they wanted to have a more inclusive process. it was this debate that led to a stalemate. then the united nations were called in to hold elections. they would not let the united nations into the northern part of the peninsula and then you have establishment of two rival regimes. notdocumentation does support, as the caller said, the u.s. was more than happy to divide. there were strong debate. guaranteeas trying to you had representation from numerous sides, where as the aviets were pushing for

communist government over the entire peninsula by excluding all parties, other than the communist party. host: originally from erie, pennsylvania. our guest earned his doctorate and spent a number of much studying in north korea while stationed in seoul, south korea. guest: i spent a month in north korea totaled over two trips. probably -- traveled around the country quite a bit. when you are an historian, you -- they do not ask too many questions. so you get to travel around the things that you probably wouldn't. host: you can see his work online at the wilsoncenter.org. if you are0

democrat. 202-748-8001 if you are a republican. and for independents, 202-748-8002. on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i served in south korea north of in 1964 andallel 1965. korea wasme, south kind of slow. as i understand now, they are becoming very up-to-date, wealthy, they have manufacturing going on, electronics and stuff. it is interesting to see the difference in north and south communism was

imposed. capitalism at work. the judgment from maryland saying the u.s. did not with allt is an insult the blood that was shed and money spent sitting in south koreato stop the north coming down. i was in the direct route north -- north to south that we would take it there was a speed bump. doubt the difference of north and south korea is like daylight and dark. i thank you gentlemen for bringing this to light. host: thank you from the call, another look at that nasa photograph. you for your

service and you are absolutely right. from theuth korea, time of the year 1964, 1965 has come a long way. leader ofrs after the the latem 1961 through 1970's, just a few years after he came into power, this was the father of the current presidents of south korea. policies -- the war.y from the korean in andsident came focused on economic development with the tremendous support of the united states. in the 1950's and 1960's, there was a book dependence on u.s.

aid. another indication of that commitment you pointed out. in addition to stationing troops on the korean peninsula and being that front line, the speed bump as you pointed out, if north korea were to invade. 1960's,rom the late that the south korean economy caught up and been surpassed that of north korea. host: let's go to charles entries port, louisiana. good morning. taking myank you for call. i was with the marine corps in 1950's. to seoul,l the way korea. there, we had been returned down and would go

aboard the ship and make the return back to japan, but we were going to north korea. we went to the reservoir and i got frostbitten while i was up there, and that is the reason i got flown out with a medical discharge. here is my situation. we would have had korea north and south without the chinese interference if we had stopped at the 30th parallel as we had intended. was akorea was very, -- very, very desolate place. it would take them years to achieve much. but i think the chinese were on their side. if it had not been for harry truman, we would have no idea what would have happened.

i just wanted to make a comment. you to you and those who have served. james person? interestingis an take and counterfactual. we don't know how it would have turned out, but the chinese government, which you have put this in perspective. 1949s only in october of that the chinese communist party declared victory in the civil war. later, less than a year later, the korean war broke out. they were consolidating power.

there were areas within the borders of china today that had not yet been brought under control. there were certainly insecurity and they were quite uncomfortable with this going on on their border. host: a related piece on newsweek.com. jong-unack obama, kim wants to talk. muscle the recent flexing with regard to north korea and its nuclear program, when asked to state current u.s. policies, indicating that the president is still prepared to begin a dialogue with north korea. let's go to jim on the republican line from erie,

pennsylvania. good morning, jim. caller: good morning. the question is in light of south korea's recent cuts to its defense, my understanding is they have almost eliminated one of their tears of the reserve system. of a lot -- in a light different pressures, the south oura need more than may be logistical forces and the annual military exercises, do they really need deployed combat forces in south korea? a country thate can afford to do more for its own defense. the second part of my question, does the north korean army possessed logistical capability to convey the south? i will hang up and listen to your spots. thank you. host: thank you. two key points. guest: thank you. i am not entirely following the

recent defense cuts to the military budget. it -- ahink a lot of lot of the rationale behind our continued deployments in the peninsula is to guarantee, or to -- tohat we are a demonstrate the commitment to the security of the region, not of the korean people, but also other countries in the region. for that, i would say our critical. is as for the second question, this one is interesting. the north koreans in 2013 one want an equal

emphasis policy and calls for the simultaneous development of their nuclear forces and the consumer economy. industry consumer goods. one of the side effects is this is that you have seen the hauling out of the conventional military. they have invested so much in toir nuclear and technology the point where you really don't have an intermediate here. the conventional forces have essentially become construction brigades. they are responsible for a lot of the construction, the new apartment buildings, the prestige projects, such as

dolphin aquariums and water parts you are seeing images of, ski resorts. so, the military has been hollowed out. artillery, and no intermediate gear nuclear ifpons, which of course, is -- is of major concern because the risk of miscalculation. but, i would say that they really do not have the capability to launch an attack on south korea today. credibilityating through presence is one of the main reasons why we are still on the peninsula today. that is credibility to the r.o.k. interregional allies. -- last thing we want is for

is to be seen as less than a credible ally. we have seen how that has resulted in the past years, especially with the r.o.k. there have been efforts with south korea and very as times has questioned our credibility. example, the weapons program, they were not sure if they could count on the credibility of the u.s. started pulling out troops from the korean peninsula. host: i want to remind audiences, just a couple of minutes with our guest, james person, the emeritus director of the wilson center. robert from north carolina is joining us. are you with us? caller: can you hear me?

host: we sure can. caller: i was also in the korean war in be-26. . want to refer to the lights i think it was april 1953, they exchanged sick and wounded prisoners. there was a huge searchlight. up until then, any kind of light , we bombed it. there was a string of car traffic coming from north korea. we could not touch it because they were prisoners of war. you, sir, is on a scale of 1-10, what would you the possibility of us having to go back to war? i think you answered it previously. have another were with north korea? 1 being likely and 10

being very likely? thank you, sir. think that waro is not likely. i am hesitant to put a number on it. there is this impression that the north korean leaders are irrational and unpredictable. there is a clear logic at work and her actions. going backthis decades. they engage in provocative ,ctions because they understand they know the responses are going to get from the united states. often times, it is to get to sit down and negotiate. back decades. it goes back to, in many ways, one of our first post korean war interactions with them was in 1968 when he seized the u.s. ship, the pueblo, international

-- which was operating in international waters. the north koreans expected us to retreat militarily and attack major cities. you can see from the diplomatic communistour former allies, there were preparations in north korea for this attack. for example, they were evacuating nonessential personnel from embassies and building fortifications, and evacuating some of the civilian populations. not only did we not retaliate, but we sat down and negotiated with them for 11 months. essentially, gave them what they had requested, which was an admission of having hostile intentions for the regime. can see how they're thinking developed over the years through the diplomatic record of their format -- former communist

allies. s, they try to reach out to the united states. we largely ignored them. there were good reasons to ignore some of the proposals, for nearly two decades, they reached out and tried through various channels, through other communist countries, non-communist countries, through individuals with ties to washington. largely ignored them. this reinforced the idea that if you want to get the intention of united states, you have to engage in provocative actions. not only will we not retaliate, we will sit down and talk. you can see the evolution of their thinking. the rush and records -- the russian records, they are sitting down and saying, you should consider giving up the nuclear program.

the north koreans saying, thanks, but, really this is none of your business. we are using this as leverage on the united states, and that is what it was. that was what the nuclear weapons program was through kim jong-un. there was in a logic guiding their provocative actions. we need to have a better understanding of how they operate. areto understand how they good students of our responses. the study is very carefully and know how we have responded in the past. they are very good on their history. and how we will likely respond in the future. int: an interesting story the "washington post," referring to the gentrification and rich

in north korea. jean is the last call from jackson, michigan. good morning with james person of the wilson center. caller: yes. i think the korean problem started after world war ii when the u.s. divided korea and -- korea in italian nation for the russians dividing east germany. at the end of the korean war, leaderwer gave up to the gave the northey koreans anything they wanted to get out of it. they wanted to ended that they wanted to end it the quickest way possible. host: thank you, jane. guest: certainly cold were politics were at play on the korean peninsula. -- i talkedk it was

to some of the conditions that led to the establishment of two regimes on the korean peninsula. i don't think it was in retaliation for pub dividing germany. host: quick follow up because the president will be departing saturday for poppy at nominal will also travel to japan and will visit hiroshima. how will north korea play into this discussion throughout asia? guest: i think north korea is a concern throughout the region. he could reassure neighboring countries that the u.s. is committed to security. that is the biggest concern that the u.s. -- providing reassurance is the best thing he could do. host: and is kim jong-un firmly in control right now? guest: after this congress, yes.

he put his stamp on the regime. this is the kim jong-un era in north korea. education reporter christina samuels talks about funding for special education programs. we will also take your calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" his life every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight on "the communicators." while visiting a technology fair on capitol hill with spoke with frank upton, chair of the energy

and commerce committee and chair of the transportation and infrastructure committee. we also interviewed innovators from ford motor company about new technology, spectrum issues, and the upcoming spectrum auction. >> look where we are today in terms of communication, job creation. we are working on a major bill. we are working on legislation we have already passed. we will see the fcc free up more of a spectrum which will allow these devices to be used and communicated with. putting in the legislation, this will make people look at, how do you build a road to the future? yourdo you need for technology to be working better fro. >> from the very first generation that we launched almost a decade ago, our focus has been on making your device in a way that helps you keep

your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road and for us, that has always been about voice technology. >> we are working with our colleagues to come up with a sharing solution. we are working with our colleagues at ncia. we are working with our colleagues at the department of transportation. >> watch "the communicators," tonight at 8:00 eastern tonight on cspan 2. >> now, a house subcommittee hearing on concussions in youth sports with medical officials and a sports officials. they testify about how the brain is affected by contact sports at an early age. and the need for more research. there is also testimony from two mothers, whose sons died as a result of multiple concussions. >> good morning and welcome to