in the past. and i understand why he would do that, but in the world of negotiation, diplomacy, it's about meeting with other people, having negotiations, and trying to find a resolution. you are not going to say we are going to have a discussion with you at all. obviously, he has come forward and said he wants complete denuclearization. >> again, we are not saying we are not going to have a discussion. i am for engagement and dialogue. he coulden have -- even ask for a grand bargain. denuclearization. i do you think that one important issue have not come up, and we came up a little bit. really impossible to verify. i worked in the

intelligence community. we don't of how many weapons they have, and we don't know where they are. there are so many covert facilities and underground tunnels, and it will be hard to verify. the is why i am saying -- definition has been used by pompeo today, and that is what we are thinking is an unrealistic goal. >> it might be easier to verify if you can have people in there, looking around. sue mi: all over north korea. >> we will not get that unless we have a negotiation. we cannot say at this point that we will never be able to find it and it is not going to work. you have to have the discussions, and you have to have the people in there, and you don't have that right now. >> this is an essential point. in our opening statements, we called for a negotiation, for arms control, inspectors in north korea, and getting our arms around these programs. we are responding to the motion as constructed, which is can we denuclearize north korea? that wenuclearization

are saying no to. everything else -- >> they are saying they are ready to discuss it. what negotiator would go into a negotiating -- a negotiation -- and step back from the position? of course we are going to go in there with our absolute maximalist position. you would be crazy not to. what i am saying is the united states has done a poor job over the norths of reading koreans. a lot of times, you read what they say, here what a have pronounced, and understand what they are trying to do. any good negotiator is going to seento this, like tiger, that the north koreans, kim jong-un, discussed it with our secretary of state. why would we give that up? >> briefly, if you're going to argue that it's ok to have inspectors, have a negotiation, have inspectors, isn't that part of the process of

denuclearization? you want to have inspectors in there. are also not having it. i want to go back to my optimism point -- you guys never said optimism. i asked you if the opposite of their pessimism is there their optimism? >> be cautious because there is a history of working with the country. don't go in their blind. you go in there, but you be cautious and careful about what you do and what you say because you know the history. >> in the green shirt. microphone coming in from your left side. if you could tell us your name and ask question? -- a question? >> my name is luke. one thing we heard was about accountability from kim jong-un. i don't think anybody in this room would trust this guy, but

what about regional actors who may interested in negotiations to denuclearize north korea, for instance, south korea, japan, china? what role may they play in denuclearizing the korean peninsula? >> let me take the first two. beside arguing against. that anyis no question agreement we come to, whether it big loftyntrol or the denuclearization goal, requires other countries that are not just the united states. south korea, essential, china, japan, essential. that would rely on the international community and agencies like the international atomic agency to do those inspections. there is another side to this coin which is to realize that every country that sees itself as having a deep interest in the hash korean nuclear issue already staked out its bargaining position, so one example of this is china.

not going to be represented at the summit in a few weeks, but certainly made its feelings known to kim jong-un when he visited aging a few weeks ago. to kim jong-un's visit to beijing, the chinese have already promised to begin letting guestworkers from north korea back into china. that's before kim jong-un has done anything. the chinese have already begun to grant him economic relief. part of what we are calling here is realistic goals that all of these international actors can get behind. we leave the gall to lofty, everyone to find it for themselves and moves the levers asincentives as they see fit opposed to in a relationship to something tangible that we can all agree to. specialt to give attention to south korea. we would not be here without president moon jae-in and his diplomacy. i think we must give him a great

deal of credit. he read the situation well and offered an attractive offramp. told moon that it was ready to step back from the one obstacle to pass negotiations and that was the north korean insistence that the u.s. remove its troops. they were saying they won't insist on that. that is a major positive sign. expect sanctions to be lifted immediately. they understand it is a process and we have control over it. until they do verifiable steps towards denuclearization, we don't have to do a thing. why do we have to list a single sanction? this is not child play. do. is something nationals people who work in negotiation, people who work in verification.

this is not something we have to give away before we get to the table without it being verified. >> another question? sir, right in the aisle? >> does the north have enough in way of conventional firep ower aimed at seoul without giving up all their chips? >> of course they have a conventional power. there is 14,000 conventional ones sealed in within 30 seconds of seoul. preventive war would have been catastrophic. still, so does south korea. lost inrea basically terms of revelry with south korea on every possible thing. nuclear weapons is the only thing they have over south korea. >> defend themselves. >> [indiscernible] >> if i understand your question

, until north korea had a reliable nuclear deterrent, u.s. military planners assessed that the united states in south korea woodwind in the war with north korea. any conventional war. sue mi: -- ofthey still inflict enough a blow that it would be too heavy -- interestingwhat is is that for the first time, the north koreans have put forward the possibility of discussing a reduction of their conventional forces, too. it's very interesting. we never heard them say it before. it's another step, a positive step, that we see why this time is this it -- is different. >> right here in front. sue mi: i want to finish that question. 15 seconds. it's not against south korea. it's against the united aids. capability to reach us.

it's not about having something over south korea. their goal is against the united states. >> my name is christine. this question will double down on optimism. it seems like a common sense solution for the u.s. to offer to denuclearize. has that ever been on the table, and do you think the north koreans would trust that in both sides would move to verifiable denuclearization? >> i am so glad you asked that question. take it to suzanne dimaggio. in the past, when the north koreans have talked about denuclearization, this is exactly what they meant. reciprocal. they are not saying that now, because they know it is an on target. that's another signal that this could be serious, and another signal why we should take the risk of engaging with them. it's a small risk. and try to get what we can out of it. the fact that they are stepping back from demanding we remove

our troops, stepping back am saying we have to be derived, too. to these things -- denuclearize, too. i would be the first to say they are not serious. but cut this off right now. they are not saying that. they are actually saying the opposite. that has never been an issue with the u.s. getting rid of its nuclear weapons. that's probably not going to happen anytime soon, and that's part of a bigger argument that is part of the nonproliferation treaty itself. talking about things on the table, kim jong-un did say weapons are not targeting south korea. in the u.s. very interesting you said that. i will return to this because my partner said it several times already. that is the fact that north

has called for the denuclearization of the entire thean peninsula and that's language that appeared in the joint statement between north korea and south korea just last week. when you say the denuclearization of the entire peninsula, they mean the end to the u.s. alliance with south korea, removal of american troops from the peninsula, and -- >> it's true. how can you say that? it's what you have always meant, but they have not said it this time. in fact, what they are saying is removing the nuclear and strategic assets from south korea, not our troops. we do not have any nuclear assets. we take them there and tell them, have a look. i i think the audience -- might be wrong, but i think the optimism was why not? why not -- why should the u.s. not agree to pull out its 28,000

troops and remove the nuclear umbrella if that would be the price of getting came to give up his -- am i right? >> it was actually asking about american denuclearization. >> all of it. i thought so. the whole ball of >>. >> -- the whole ball of wax. >> is about the global zero movement, the effort to get to zero nuclear weapons, certainly something president obama was anditted to in theory, something we have not seen reiterated as an objective under this administration. so i would not suggest that is really on the table right now from an american perspective. that requires consideration of several other countries, but when it comes to the question of removing all u.s. troops from the peninsula, the question there comes down to whether we all remaining elements of the north korean threat. if the united its was to agree to end alliance with south korea its 28,000 troops in

the peninsula, it could only do that under conditions where it was sure south korea was secure. it's not just the denuclearization of south korea, but the inability of them to do that conventionally. it would still not give south korea that guarantee. >> north koreans are not demanding the removal of u.s. troops from the peninsula. in fact, they said the opposite. who seems tosident be the most interested in removing our troops that we learned yesterday that this report, who seems more interested in doing that than the north koreans are. make up facts.ot let's follow what the north koreans are saying. let's bring them to the table, hold them to account, by all means, but let's pursue this to the fullest extent. [applause] be as your opponents can robust as that or even more so. [laughter]

>> if you could tell us your name please? >> my name is dave. i think everyone acknowledged that china has the most influenced by far of any country in north korea, yet we have also seen over the years that china has also been condemning north korea for its nuclear program, so given that and that the chinese themselves have not been able to denuclearize north korea, how can we then come to the same table? china's primary goal was north korea has not been denuclearization. it's been regional stability. keep that in mind. that's what we have been motivated by. they don't want refugees flooding their borders, and they do not want u.s. troops on their border, which would happen if north korea collapsed, but the point about china is let's keep things in mind. they have done a much better job

bringing tougher sanctions against north korea and enforcing those sanctions. not perfect. that's one of the reasons we are at this point, because the sanctions are biting. the resolution of the issue is that china will play one of the key roles. who do you think is going to be the guarantor for north korean security? it's going to be beijing. think china's role strengthens your argument in this debate? suzanne: absolutely. at the end of the day, the chinese would like to see this problem go away. they do not want to see north korea go away. they don't necessarily want to see kim jong-un doorway. that is the buffer between us and them. they would like to see that kim stay, but tensions reduce, and certainly, if kim jong-un -- china would step up to the plate and be a guarantor for their security. >> with the opposing side like to respond?

verythink you could make a clear opposing argument, which is as suzanne said, the chinese have always been more interested in the ability on the korean peninsula. under severe stress from the trump administration, they put more pressure on north korea this year and more sanctions in place, and those have started to bite somewhat. what they are looking for next is to be in a position where they can take some of that pressure off and have started to do that already. do that because it will move back to the threat of military -- u.s. military strikes, preempted strikes on north korea, and that is the last thing the chinese want. they stepped up to the plate with sanctions. >> i am not sure how far china wants to get ahead of the process. they had the meeting, and that was good. i do not know how far they want in the negotiation of what is going to happen with the u.s. and north korea.

making the case that they are already getting things, and north korea has not done anything yet, but i am not sure how far they want to get ahead of the process. >> another question. >> thank you. so i just have a kind of moral question for the people that are for the proposition. the third time that we are kind of negotiating this. i think that there is a lot of bluster in this administration without tryingt to bias the audience. and what i think is impossible to get a complete denuclearization of north korea. you think that you can -- >> can you -- , so inoral question is the 1990's, you had a lot of people serving, and millions of people died because of sanctions, actions on the part

of the international community to get them to the table. i think that happened again. >> no more exposition. get your question, sir. >> my question with this run-on sentence with a lot of comments, use theset moral to things as a bargaining chip when you have somebody who is in a position where he thinks he's going to die if he gets rid of his nuclear deterrent? and so, he will hold onto that. is it moral to do that when this is the third time we have failed ? millions of people have died. can we not try to change our assumptions going into something else? ait, wait. i think you do have an important question. can you boil it down to one sentence? we don't have much time left. actually, we are out of time.

try to do it fast. >> my question is, morally, is it ok when you have been wrong twice to with bluster assume you will be right the third time when there are millions of lives at stake in something like this, when i think that that is why china -- >> going to pass on the question, sir. i want to give someone else a chance. don't think you are presenting it with bluster. sir? if you could be really terse with this question, because we are hitting a time limit. >> the trump administration and its north korean counterpart, officials from both sides seem to be very optimistic going into these negotiations. leverageeach side's and weaknesses and blind spots? >> briefly. who holds what cards? >> the incentives are the

security guarantees, peace treaty, normalization, bringing north korea in from the cold, economic part. the liabilities i see, and i will be very frank, is i think our administration. our decimated state department. can we actually carry out such complex negotiations? hopefully, mr. pompeo will build up, bring back this writer, -- as he says. the swagger? as he says. they see an opportunity in mr. trump, someone very eager to cut a deal, who has wavered on alliances, someone who does about humanoot rights, so they don't expect any lectures. maybein all their minds, this is the u.s. president for us. let's do this. >> the other side? a deal with to do this president. when i was in pyongyang in

february, 2017, he was in office three weeks. they brought up the idea of a summit at that point. they have been thinking about this for a long time and planning it. >> bonnie jenkins? bonnie: i would add to what suzanne said. there is the situation and what we do with iran. i think it will be something that is a game. also, our recent review, which we committed to building more nuclear weapons. however, i will say, despite all of that, he still wants to talk. has notying things he said before. so in light of all of that, he wants to have a conversation, and we we can do this through negotiations. >> the other side. sue mi: i agree with everything suzanne said. north korea has been thinking about this for a very long time. they completed their

program. they think trump and the administration. they will offer something that will look good that will come back to haunt us later, and this is the scenario we are warning against. >> at the end of the day cannot be verified, it is no deal. that is the hard facts of it. >> the last word. >> i would agree that north korea's greatest strength is its negotiating position it has been playing for the last year, the completed nuclear altar -- arsenal, and it has south korea and china on its side because of our president's bad behavior and that the primary weakness on the u.s. side his desire to deal and ill preparedness, which they will fall for a deal that is not good for the united states or the world because it is looking so much to score the win. also underscore strength on the u.s. side which is our state department though it is decimated, we have extraordinary civil servants, staffing the

back channel and trying to summit [indiscernible] [applause] to oft concludes round the intelligence -- two of the intelligence roundtable. [indiscernible] [applause] >> now we move on to around three. round three will be closing statements place debater in turn. speaking first for the motion, ambassador jenkins, from the brookings institution and former state department official. >> i hope you all enjoyed the debate, and i just want to say, one thing i did not talk about is i have been 22 years in the military. i was in the navy and air force, then switched to navy reserve. during my time, i did one of those tours. i did one of the military exercises, one of the exercises north korea is concerned about. it was a great experience, and i met a lot of great south

koreans, made good friends, and it was a big exercise, all the branches of the u.s. and soviet -- soviet, south korean military involved. i will say despite the fun we had and the friends we made, none of us want that to be a reality. none of us wanted to say this is something we have to be worried about and everything we are practicing we really have to do. so we should be doing everything possible to try to bring peace to the region area we should do everything possible to negotiate , whenever we have a chance, to take every opportunity to try to find a way to declare -- a way to denuclearize the korean peninsula, and reduce the tensions that we don't have to worry about a nuclear exchange or any other kind of war on the peninsula. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, bonnie jenkins. our next speaker will be speaking against the motion, sue

senior fellow at the center for strategic and international studies. sue mi: my paternal grandparents came from north korea. they happened to be in south korea when the war broke out and never made it back, so their lifelong wish was to see their separated parents and siblings hands the unification and peace on the korean peninsula. unfortunately both of them passed away without seeing either. we are asking you to vote for our side, not because we don't want a peaceful solution but because we do. suzanne said we need to pay attention to what north koreans are saying. we need to read what they are saying. so i brought something to read. because too often we debate u.s. policy towards north korea based on what we wish it to be rather than reality of the situation. in the new year's editorial address, which talked about

diplomacy, kim jong-un said the u.s. will not dare to invade because we have a popular full -- a powerful nuclear deterrent. he stated to the korean workers party that the north has completed nuclear arsenal is a guarantee the north koreans worked hard with their belt tightened to acquire a powerful [indiscernible] for defending peace. does this completion of the nuclear arsenal is a firm guarantee for the security or well-being of prosperity? sound like a pre-lateral disarmament? north korea have a different definition of degradation. does it sound like, because you said we should read what north koreans have been saying, this is what he said two weeks ago, doesn't sound like a leader ready to give up universally his nuclear weapons program? we need to hear what they are

counting on. we are urging you to vote against this motion today sely raisel expectations are more dangerous and risky and not for the piece of the korean peninsula. [applause] terry.k you, sue mi the motion is negotiations to denuclearize north korea. here to make her closing statement in support of the motion, suzanne dimaggio, senior fellow at new america and u.s. dprk. suzanne: thank you. over the course of my career, i have spent many hours sitting across the table from what, from those many would call adversaries. one of the things i have learned from this experience is that things, unexpected things happen when you are faced to face. suddenly preconception, what has happened in the past,

assumptions fly out the window. you really never know until you get there. one of the greatest lessons i have learned through my work is that even though we live in the 21st century, the internet age, nothing can take the place of that face to face dialogue. and we have not had that in north korea for a long time. the fact that we came so close to a war, perhaps a nuclear war months ago, means it is time to get it started again. this is not a case where president trump is going to sign an executive order and with the stroke of his pen, make this happen. this is a process, as they said, so we need to be pragmatic. i think at the end of the day, what it is going to come down to is whether or not we can change the nature of our relationship with north korea, and anyone engaged in diplomacy knows how hard it is to do that with an

adversary. look at iran today. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't drive, and i would like to end with a quote by a great diplomat and friend, someone -- friend. if you ever want to win the great diplomat richard holbrook. i think it was richard holbrook who told me that. .reat diplomat and risk taker he understood taking a smart risk to get peace, so he said, i think history is continuous. it doesn't begin or end on pearl harbor day or the day lyndon johnson withdraws the presidency or on 9/11. you have to learn from the past but not be imprisoned by it. you need to take counsel of history but never be imprisoned by a. korean relations have been riddled with missed opportunities, failed attempts to make peace. we can and should learn from these past mistakes.

our opponents have raised the fact that we have not been able to do this in the past as the reason we shouldn't do it now. that makes no sense, and it makes me more revved up to get this done. i think the opportunity is too big. >> thank you. suzanne: please vote for this motion. john: you are just out of time. that motion is denuclearizing north korea, and here to make her closing statement against the motion, and you have extra time to even things out, mira rapp-hooper, from yell law. -- yale law. mira: desiring to create an environment favorable for peace and peaceful unification of our country, north and south korea declared they shall not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess or deployed or use nuclear weapons.

was this a declaration from last week's summit from north and south korea? it is not. it is the text of the 1992 agreement to denuclearize the korean peninsula, signed by north korea while it was in the midst of launching the nuclear weapons program it has completed. nearly all of these promises made with the intent of breaking them. we have been down this road before. we believe that some deal with north korea may be possible, but we also know that denuclearization has never been further from sight. however opponents persuaded there is a specific deal -- have our opponents persuaded that there is a specific deal? they have argued there are talks that could be productive, and we agree. we agreed with that when we entered this room, but we don't agree those talks make him give up his entire hard won nuclear

arsenal. that is what denuclearization is. we don't think they have met this burden. don't be fooled into buying what is not for sale. a vote for this motion tonight is a vote for the same policy we have been pursuing for the last 30 years. join us in stead in calling for smart diplomacy that has a chance of making the world safer and more secure through realistic goals. think through their history we have presented and demand we do better than we have in the past. join us in voting against this motion. [applause] thank you. that concludes our closing statements and around three, and is time to figure out which side has argued more persuasively. please vote as you did at the

beginning by going to your mobile device and going to the url used to the first time. that will be coming up on the screen briefly for those might need a reminder. you will be prompted with a vote for, against, or undecided. go to iq2us.org/vote to get that. .org/vote. you also have instructions in your programs. while we are collecting the votes, the first thing i wanted to do was to say how pleased i am on a bunch of levels about this debate. the first level is the partnership with the georgetown women's forum has been so positive for us, and we thought the promise was excellent and turned out to be better than we anticipated. great partners and a great event, so thank you to georgetown women's forum. [applause] jane: an interesting thing is we

started planning to do a debate on north korea probably back last october, and when i worked at nightline and we worked on a project, we would travel around the world and put together and work hours and hours and months and months. the day we were going to put it on the air, something happened to give it a new impetus. we call that the news gods smiling on us. we feel that they smiled on us last all we decided we should be thinking about doing a debate about north korea around this time. it was a pleasure it came to fruition. of raising our goal public discourse by bringing debaters who are bringing gain, who really want to compete and do in a way that is respectful and honors the other side, recognizes the other arguments, it is our goal. the way in which you all conducted yourselves is a model for everybody who is everybody going to have an argument. [applause]

and the way we launched tonight, my conversation with written, her book is and we could have gone two hours with that. thank you for that. [applause] i wanted to let you know later on this month on may 14, they will be back in new york city for a debate on the motion whether the resolution is automation will crash democracy. debaters are ian fleming, monk, italy not, and king. we will be traveling to aspen, colorado and hosting debates at the ideas festival. you can get those on our website, iq2us.org. we have people that follow our debates, but for people who don't, if you are in learning about us, you can learn more

about us on the website. you can vote on debates, listen to podcasts. we have done 150 debates now. membership is free, so just set up an account. you can want all of our debates , apple tv on roku devices. .ust search for the iq2us app we are also on public radio stations across the country. while we are waiting for the results to come in, we are probably two minutes away, i have a question i would like to ask all of the debaters. this is not part of the competition anymore. we are just curious, since you think about these things, we have been talking about the impact on north korea, but in terms of if and when there is a summit between trump, kim, donald trump and kim jong-un, in terms of donald trump's presidential legacy, even as president, will this have -- do

you think this has a domestic impact? do you think whatever happens will matter in the midterm elections and in the political game as it is being played? >> i think president trump is hoping for that. this is why, because he can't -- i think he will really come out of this meeting expecting a win because he can say this is my foreign-policy success. no other predecessor from clinton to bush to obama could accomplish this. look what i was able to accomplish going into the november election. i don't know if we will actually have an impact, but this is what the president is hoping for. >> i have two answers to that. they are talking about the nobel peace prize, so apparently there is thinking that this will him eligible for the nobel peace prize. i think that will make him want to have success, whatever it might be.

but the other thing is that unfortunately a lot of these issues don't always resonate during elections, and a lot of these issues don't resonate in terms of the voting. americans tend to focus mostly on domestic issues, mostly on issues that are closer at hand, that they can actually see and taste. and this matters to us in washington. it may matter to people on university campuses who are studying the issue, but it when it comes to elections and people go to vote, it is not what people focus on. john: anything else? on thatee with bonnie point. if the summit is a success, and it gives us on a sustained path towards negotiations, it will have an effect domestically but not in the political sense. when i think of hawaii just a few minutes -- months ago when people got a text that a missile

was incoming, everyone assumed it was north korea, my heart went out to them. i felt terrible about that. i think if this summit is a success and we get down that road, the prospect of that happening, people's fears about that, the prospect of nuclear war diminishes greatly. that is something we should all hope for and work toward. >> i will just add that although that theith suzanne president will point to something as a win heading into the midterms, but it comes time to vote in a presidential election in 2020, whatever this becomes will be held up against the rest of his foreign-policy record, and there is another decision coming up we did not talk about during this debate. that is the fate of that iran nuclear deal. if the president's scores a win with north korea but dismantles a real deal keeping another nuclear program in a box, this will not help his legacy. john: you have no voted twice,

and i have the results. the declare of the winner of the debate. it is the difference between the first and second vote. on the motion negotiations can denuclearize north korea before the debate in polling in washington, 34% agreed with the motion, 41% were against, 25% were undecided. those are the first results. it is the difference between the first and second vote that determines the winner. in the second vote the team arguing for the motion, their first vote was 34%, their second was 27%. they lost 7%. the team against was 41%. .heir second was 67% the team arguing against the motion, negotiations can denuclearize north korea, declared our winner by the audience tonight. our congratulations to them. not overf this debate

yet. our audiences are tuning in online. we still have time to vote. you can see results which are ongoing at iq2us.org. team, you one. congratulations. it has been a pleasure. from me, john donvan, and intelligence squared u.s., we will see you next time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer 1: on c-span this week in prime time, tonight at 8:00 eastern, a look at how the criminal justice system handles people suffering from mental illness. >> since 1980 the number of people going to jail has tripled , and their sentences have .ncreased 166% and as you peel back the onion and try to figure out what in the heck has happened, what you will find is most of this is due

to untreated mental health illness and substance use disorders. announcer 1: on c-span. ♪ announcer 1: c-span's "washington journal," live every day with policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, former aclu president nadine strasse discusses her book which talks about the line between hate speech and free speech, and author david horowitz talks about his latest book and his critique of the american progressive movement. be sure to join us at 9:00 eastern when high school reviewent teachers sample questions for the advanced placement u.s. government and politics exam. some of today's white