limited government, tax cuts, deregulation, and the move toward privatization have meant. it has met the largest these time in our history, and i can guarantee you they will not want to throw that away to budgets beholden to liberal special interests. >> watch american history tv every weekend on c-span3. us from well is like college, the chair of asian studies department. good morning, thank you for joining us. >> hi. tell us about what you are saying from the olympics on the diplomatic front. about kimot of talk jong-un's sister. what do you take a away from what has happened the last few days? >> i think the presence of the sister of the north korean

leader, that is probably the most surprising aspect of the last month of preparations and developments between the two koreas. , oris also the only person er of a letter written by herb brother inviting president mukherjee and -- on that level, the last few days have been interesting. or not president moon will take up that offer, we do not know. much will depend on north korea's behavior. as far as south korea's position, i think the president of south korea, president moon has been working hard, and has regard,me run in this he wanted since he became president last spring to put south korea in the so-called

driver's seat. the driver seat of korean peninsula issues, and issues dealing with north korea. not to cede territory or power to mr. trump, who has inclined towards very hostile, regardingt rhetoric potential nuclear weapons, surgical strikes, military action, and even the destruction of north korea. in that sense, the two koreas are doing an interesting dance, but by no means does this mean that any substantive change has occurred. since a lot of symbolism, and not much substance. as far as the united states goes, i think mr. pence on his return from the opening ceremony in pyeongchang, he let out to

reporters that the u.s. may be willing to engage in some kind of dialogue without specificity. it is unclear whether washington will warm up to the idea to talk with north korea, or whether vice president pence was simply trying to be a good guest as he departed. >> our guest, if you want to ask her about these geopolitical issues, offered vice president the idea of possible dialogue, were you surprised by that? guest: yes, i was surprised by that. north korea can be full of surprises.

it is not as unpredictable as people look to say it is. i am positive the north koreans had been planning this olympic charm offensive, this olympic shared claim of a korean victory through the ceremonies through the sports events. i am sure the north koreans have been wishing this and planning this for some time. i do not think this is a spur of the moment decision on the part of the north korean leader. go,e he intends this to what his intentions are, of course, remain unclear. do you think it is more surface than any depth as far as long-term building of relations between the two countries? hard to say because they relations between the north and south have been so bad in the last 10 years.

and especially in the last several years when president predecessor of president moon was in office. she was a hardliner. she had basically served in an antagonistic role for the north koreans. change foreal sea now. what we need to watch is how serious is north korea in terms of developing its economy, which is the flipside of its national , which means parallel progress, parallel advancement. one side is military strength, including nuclear weapons area and the other side is economics, focused on the welfare of the people. since mr. kim announced that he is satisfied with the

development of nuclear weapons up to this point, maybe this is a chance to probe how serious the north koreans could be in terms of focusing on the economy. we do not know for sure. host: first call comes from danny, on the republican line. old ohio boy.n i am a buckeye. they pulled his teeth out of his mouth, treated him in a away. ill way. he only wants to start his own people. malnutrition. just so he can have nuclear weapons. steak because we lost men trying to liberate the

country that was under communism , and under tyranny. cnn and these other reporters. our president wants a parade. they put these pictures up of americans goose-stepping. americans don't goose step. americans liberate countries. guest: thank you for your heartfelt dots. north korean is an extreme violator of human rights. it is a state that does not provide first and foremost for the welfare of its people. but what is also interesting about north korea is that it actually has many divisions within its society. not to to be careful look at the society as a monolithic entity. there are people in the elite well, theyfared very

eat well and trick well, and they had the hottest consumer goods we can buy in united states. then there are those at the bottom who are struggling on a day-to-day level. i would hope that if the north korean leader has the sensibility and the awareness that his regime and its existence really depends on his ,bility to bring that bottom-up to provide food regularly, releaseare, etc., and the kind of every day choke on normal people's lives. hasp tomr. kim jong-un sober up on that level. there are signs that in north korea, people do note that the economy is the answer.

host: democrats line, carl. caller: good morning. i want to say, kim jong-un might the at tyrant, but i do not think he is in that case. a not case.s united states should step back and be vigilant. korean people want unification, they should have unification. we've got to remember when so-called liberated them in the 1950's, we killed i believe 20% or 25% of the people in north korea liberating them. i think we should be, we should rethink our policy and be cautious. what about this idea about

the perception of kim jong-un versus the reality? guest: the perception is that he is crazy and unpredictable. perception is that he is ruthless, and he is pretty ruthless. but i do not see him as unpredictable or crazy or irrational. this is a man and senior leadership that he has that have been calculating, very strategic as well as tactical in their public announcements, in their domestic politics, in their .uclear strategic development and so far, his regime has planned things so well, they have been able to orchestrate the direction of u.s. north korea relations, as well as the north south negotiations of the past month.

this is a very savvy regime. i think we need to keep that in mind. even if he were irrational, even if he were nuts, that does not mean we should not try to deal with a country and leadership that has nuclear weapons, or a leadership that is so difficult. the united states has been friends with crazier people, with less responsible people, and the united states is currently friends with people like mr. dutere of the philippines, who is absolutely intal, and is proud of it shooting people, murdering people left and right for drug abuses and other problems that they have never been prosecuted or convicted of. dialogue andk

diplomacy are things that are restricted just to so-called same people. sane people. st.: st. louis mcgirt -- louis, missouri. caller: thank you for taking my call. professor moon, what you think about the back-and-forth between president trump and the north korean leader? is that constructive? is there any disadvantage? guest: that is a good question. answer you have your own , the way you are asking me. no, i do not think it has been constructed at all. these two gentlemen, mr. trump, mr. kim, they have been playing with words, and their words are very dangerous. -- eate tory rhetoric,

scalotory rhetoric, incendiary rhetoric can lead to increased distrust, increased perception -military -- met - actions. and the interpretation of both sides could lead to military engagement. that is something that all sane people should want to avoid. two men have been playing a game of who is the bigger bully. that is not the right approach. it is highly unprofessional and irresponsible. it does not solve anything. it exacerbates the problem. from lebanon, new jersey, michael.

on our independent line. caller: thank you. professor men, as far as who is the madmen leader that they submit that he is not a madmen. the only madmen are in washington dc. because, the word around the world, we are a killer nation. 20 years of perpetual regime changes throughout the world that has killed 3.5 million people in the middle east. as of today, they started their invasion of syria to overthrow the government of assad. to have thees chance to reunify on their conditions, not the conditions of the united states. until the united states withdraws from korea, and shows

they are intentionally going to get out of there, and turn over command of the south korean army, then you can have peace, tranquility, and everything. host: michael, thank you. guest: michael, thank you for your comments. i grew up in new jersey. thank you for calling in. unificationissue of is a very important one for the two koreas. it is also really complex, and something most americans do not have a pulse on. south korea and north korea, both countries have constitutions that mandate the pursuit of unification. unification is it written into the law of both countries. and, of course, on an emotional familiesven that many

were torn apart through the refugee experience, through all sorts of traumas during the war, it is a very heartfelt and -- thorn in both koreas psyche. but unification by south and north gets played up as instruments of politics. that is where it becomes dangerous. this whole past month of negotiations, there has been too beingymbolic unification toyed with, being touted, because substantively nothing has changed to bring the two asntries seriously together compatible, collaborative, cooperative playmates, in a way. people's notion of unification is very complicated.

the younger generations do not recall the korean war, and they are familiar with south korea that does well on its own. they do not feel the need for unification as strongly as some of the people who lived through the korean war, and also a lot of koreans are wary, they are worried about the economic and social costs, burdens of unification. many south koreans are practical about this, rather than being emotional about a nostalgic sense of a nation. if you go to the dmz, the 38th parallel, it is nakedly and unnatural situation where one land mass and the people who have been people for hundreds of years are artificially split. it is a tragedy in that sense. you are right, the two koreas have to determine their own

agenda about unification or no unification, reconciliation, what kind of reconciliation, on their own. host: is there a starting point? low hanging fruit when it comes to dialogue? fruit the low hanging between the two countries has been the family reunions. arranging the divided families from north and south to meet for several days, and there are always filled with scenes of when and excruciating pain a 90-year-old mother has finally been reunified with her 70-year-old son. but, they know it is bittersweet because after two or three days, they have to part again, never to see each other again. that is the loaf hanging fruit

when the two koreas want to try cooperation. offtwo koreas have broken military talks for many years. those talks help stabilize the situation simply by informing each other of different exercises, and informing each other that there are activities that are not intended to create an escalation of a situation. direct military to military talks will be helpful. when it comes to the issue of unification, we have to bring in what some colors have alluded to , that war on the peninsula never ended. there has never been a formal peace treaty. this is something that would be difficult to negotiate because it involves north korea, china, the united states, the united nations, as well as south korea. this is something that we need , andink more deeply about

not just as some kind of a goal weight down in the future when everything else is done. north koreans have been seeking a peace treaty with the united states for a long time. united states is wary and rightfully so, because the question is, how much is north korea willing to give up? states andll united other actors have to give up in terms of economic aid and access to international institutions if north korea were to become a of thezed member international community? it is really complicated. host: let's hear from anthony. caller: vicki for taking my call. you fords -- thank taking my call. in regards to what is going on, three weeks ago, when the

republicans, in my opinion, topic is--host: our north and south korea relations. caller: i just wanted to say something about the immigration policy. we will have to leave it there. bob from maryland. go ahead. reunification or a peace treaty rather, i want to ask the professor why the two koreas never decided to recognize each other. separate embassies and they should always have the line of medication

unpredicted crises between the countries. caller: that is an excellent question. the answer is tragically simple. the two koreas are still enemy states, and both of them, especially during the cold war were part of the cold war and ty between the east and west, the cold war basically divided the koreas. the cold war maintained the division of the koreas. when the cold war ended on the european continent, it never ended on the korean peninsula. the two koreas remain enemy states. they both have national security , if there each side

south korean wants to visit the north, that is technically illegal. north to theg, south, unless you are defecting. it has not been a possibility. hold inthe two koreas their future vision that they will one day be reunified, it seems contradictory to set up embassies because those kinds of institutions would symbolize the separateness of the two koreas rather than the joint mess, connectedness of the two koreas. massachusetts on our republican line. caller: hi. wondering, korea was under the protectorate of japan in the first world war. i blame harry truman after the second world war. why did he ever agree that the

koreas be split up between north and south at the 30th parallel. what was the logic there? caller: it is a good question. i love these callers who care about history. i wish our young students and college cared so much. the logic was very simple. the the united states and soviet union were cooperating together at the end of world war two, to defeat germany in europe and japan in asia, the u.s. and the soviet union agreed that the soviets would take over the demilitarization of the north above the 30th parallel. , demilitarizeans in the japanese who are on the peninsula.

the problem is, this is something the south koreans and north koreans remained very upset and resentful about. the problem is that the division at the 38th parallel was a random decision made by two junior level officers of the u.s. military, who within a 25 minute span looked at a map, and said we will draw the line here. the soviets will take care of the north. america will take care of the south. someday they might have election so they can decide their future. then what happened is that the north and the soviets reneged on their part of the promised elections. the midsouth went its own way and had its own elections, and established the republic of korea. the north went ahead and

established the democratic people's republic of korea. and here we are many decades later with these divided countries. ty, in connecticut. what role is played in the regime change of north korea ? caller: that is a complicated question. he is in hiding. he is worried about his life. at this point, it is impossible .o say he will have any role there are some north koreans and defectors around the world who would like to see him take up some kind of position as a counterpoint to the current regime. but i think that is not a likely situation.

kim hung so is a very young men. i think we have to admit when it comes to running countries as difficult as north korea, and a peninsula as complicated as the korean peninsula, people with more seasoned knowledge and experience might be better. at any rate, you ask a probing question, and the answer is, we don't know. what would you see as a positive first step in reunification between these countries? guest: i don't know if reunification is the right thing to put on the agenda now. people talk about it glibly. i studied this in my own

research, writing a book on it. stick ison, to really a multigenerational project. just look at germany. difficulties has economically, politically, socially, culturally because of the abrupt reunification. i do not wish foreign abrupt reunification on the korean peninsula. it would be chaotic and dangerous. in terms of reconciliation, the two sides have to commit that living peacefully, whatever the political structures might be, whether unification or ,ederation or separate states that for the time being, living peaceably is the only option. host: thank you for the time

this morning. guest: thank you very much. up, democratic delegate member of the reform committee discusses the recent in the aftermath of the rob porter story. ryan costello talks about the future of health care. c-span'so watch washington journal this morning. join the discussion. >> the c7 -- sees them bus it recently stopped in montgomery, alabama, asking what is the most important issue? >> being here and the birthplace of the modern civil rights movement, the most important issues are equality, freedom,

and equal justice for all people. we cannot talk about this every february. we have to live it every day of the year. we have to do more to build bridges. a famous educator in alabama, booker t. washington once wrote there are two ways to exert one's power. one is pushing down and one is pulling up. let's start pulling people up. >> one issue is the lack of jobs here. people are graduating from colleges, whether in montgomery or the surrounding areas. then they are looking for a job but there are no jobs here. you need more than a college degree to get a job. it is hindering a lot of people because they do not have the financial aid to keep going to school.

money to getve the the higher education, and they can't find a job with an average college degree. in the state of alabama, i believe racial inequality and justice reform. rhetorice still have in our constitution that is representative of a time that has long passed. think they have discriminatory language and document that covers a diverse group of people. it is very outdated and it limits peoples powers, the disenfranchisement. the way that law enforcement interacts with the citizens across the state, i think those things need to be addressed. we can have the gap within the

disparities and inequalities within the justice system here in alabama. both can close and not even exist. >> the cost of college education. everyone should have equal opportunities to go to college. people may be first-time commerce to college. they're giving us more money than they have given us for years. >> treasury secretary testified about his department's budget at a hearing by the senate finance committee. members also questioned him about tax reforms and russia tensions.