a south korean worker is still detained by the north koreans. what are your thoughts about the maintenance of the maintenance complex, and did you talk about president obama or whether any concerns from the americans about the industrial complex? >> north korea has been resisting, and they have reacted aggressively to the new un security council resolution which is quite expected. and of course, the north koreans may react by firing another round of missiles or taking actions. we can also expect that from them as well. however, north koreans must understand that they will not be able to gain compensation by provoking a crisis. this has been a pattern in the past, but this will no longer be. the firm at u.s. korea cooperation and alliance will not allow that. and the recent security council resolution is not simply about words. it is about taking up follow-up action and vigorously taking up the resolution. it will make sure we fully implement the un security resolution. like i said, the north koreans must understand that their past behavior will

also, the north koreans have been detaining a south korean worker. they have not given us any explanation. there are also two american journalists being currently held by the north koreans. i'm urging the north koreans to release not only the two american journalists but also the south korean worker without any conditions to release them as soon as possible. the international community is asking the north koreans to take that path. once again, and urging on the strongest terms that they release the two american journalists as well as the korean worker being held. >> thank you, mr. president. i was hoping you would consent to letting us as a couple of questions. first, there's a new policy on intercepting north korean ships at sea. if you could say anything about that. and are you concerned that could provoke north korea to higher levels? >> this is not simply a way u.s. policy. this is an international policy. this is part of what the security council resolution calls for, is the integration of arms shipments. how that will be implemented, how we app

and the korean government -- the south korean government had a successful government, now a democratic, free market government and is just thriving. and the north korea still lives under this kind of stalinnist, totalitarian state where there is no economic activity whatsoever. host: this tweet. his name is dingo star, at least that's what he says. being that the u.s. is still technically at war with north korea, would congressional approval be needed for the u.s. to take military action? guest: that's a good question. you're right that it was the korean war in the 1950's under u.n. or policing action under the u.n. auspices. i would think that the united states would if it took action, seek approval at the united nations. again, i don't think we're going to do that. i don't think we're going to go to war with north korea. and i personally don't think that would be a very good idea. host: democrats line. welcome to the program. caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: good morning. you know, i was thinking that it reminds me of the pirates in somalia. like is north korea holding these j

this isn't the average north korean because the average north korean does not have an atm card that they can take money out of a local citibank. this affects largely the leadership. the second thing i would mention with regard to these financial measures is that, when the bush administration did them, they were largely a u.s. action war united states was going to other countries and regulatory agencies in europe and elsewhere asking them to take certain actions. the big difference now is the u.n. security council resolution that calls for the designation of certain entities for financial sanctions makes much more of a multilateral effort and i think it becomes much easier to gain cooperation among other countries regulatory agencies and banks. the second point that i want to make again addressing some of the questions in the earlier recession is this whole question of the inspection regime. to me, although we don't know everything about the u.n. security council resolution, to me what is most interesting is a strong effort by the administration to develop an inspection regime to counter

the north koreans recently announced they have suspended the 1953 armistice to end the korean war. is there any practical effect to that? how do you see that? >> it is not welcome news, obviously. but the practical effect of it at this point a

that has been the north koreans. >> would be bilateral or multilateral? >> the president and secretary made it clear that we are prepared to engage bilaterally, and within a multilateral context, we are prepared to be quite ambitious in both areas. >> in the past, those talks were focused on the nuclear issue. would there be a willingness to be more diverse with respect to the topics that might be discussed? >> all topics would be open. the nuclear issue remains the core from our point of view and our partners in the 6 party process remain in the process. my belief is to deal in the long term with the problems north korea poses requires that we broaden our focus beyond the nuclear question alone. north korea is a very weak steak despite its boisterous activities in the area of nuclear technology and missiles. in order to achieve the stability in northeast asia that is important for not only the countries of that region but the country's, including the united states, we have to address how we can help north korea achieve greater economic success. as long a

weeks after the north korean test, the u.n. security council has passed a waterdown -- watereddown resolution. just after the previous admission did -- administration did, this action will be touted, it will be touted by our spokesman, as an effective response. we have heard this story before, unfortunately. it is not an effective response, and it is not because, frankly, with the lowest common denominator u.n. resolution approach where china and russia get that opportunity to water down that resolution so that it won't be enforced effectively, frankly we come to a conclusion. and the conclusion for me and i follow this issue -- followed this issue for many years is that the united states can achieve an awful lot by deploying measures to further undercut north korea's economy and the target -- and target its proliferation activities. we have found that the source of doing that before, we should do it again. past attempts to squeeze the wallet of north korea have proven very successful. when banks from across asia refuse to do b

>> well, as you suggest north korean economy is in a desperate condition. it has been steadily going downhill since probably the early 1990's and its industrial output for example is now only a fraction of what it my been in the late-1980s. is agricultural output is also been very difficult, in adequate to meet the needs of its own citizenry and number three has depended heavily on international contributions of foodstuffs to feed its own people. now, as you are aware, north korea about two months ago asked our humanitarian agencies, and organizations who were there to provide and deliver the food that the u.s. had agreed to and make available more asked to leave by the north american authorities so that food, that quantity of food is no longer being provided. we are concerned on humanitarian grounds about the condition of the north korean population. it is not good. now the country is covered by such secrecy that one doesn't know exactly what the condition of all the population might be, but it is clear that diet is inadequate in terms of caloric intake an

as the situation on the korean peninsula continues to deteriorate the u.s. needs to take a central role in determining how best to engage p'yongyang and also send a clear message to north korea cannot use illicit weapons programs, demand concessions from the international committee of monorchid the arrest american citizens are apparently trumped up charges and find them guilty in a closed-door trial. these actions will only invite further isolation, greater hardship for the north korean people and the chorus continued rejection by the international community. i am pleased that president obama is seeking to engage meaningfully on this issue in the administration is working with many of our friends and allies in the region and that the united nations to craft a strong multilateral response. the stakes are far too high for an ad hoc uncoordinated policy and we must make clear the violations of international law and basic human rights actually have a serious consequence. ambassador bosworth, i believe north korea continues to be a critical threat to our national

north korean relationship in any respect? and i ask you about employment across the border. in my home state of mississippi we've entertained medical doctors from north korea, and i don't know if that accomplish this much, except for an exchange of ideas we think those are too small steps we are taking. is there any reason to be encouraged at all by some other things that are going on? >> i think, senator, one of our strengths as a nation is our willingness to engage in humanitarian activities aside from political considerations. so, i would applaud the efforts of any american entity to try to bring about some improvement in the very desperate condition of the north korean people. that is the basis on which the u.s. government has provided food aid the last several years and it's the basis which a number of private non-governmental organizations have operated within north korea and we have never and i don't believe we will in the future try to use these activities as leverage for political ends. we deal with north korea on official government to government basis but personal

weighs steps for intercepting the korean shipments.arack obama administration signaled sunday that it was seeking a way to interdict, possibly with china's help. north korean sea and air shipments suspected of carrying weapons or nuclear technology. the administration also said it was examining whether there was a legal basis to reverse former president george bush's decision last year to remove it from the list of states sponsoring terrorism. >> if we do not take significant and effective action against the north koreans know we will spark an arms race in northeast asia. no one wants to see that. we are sharing with other countries our calculus of the risks and dangers that lie ahead if we do not take very strong action. >> there was a letter saying that north korea should go back on the list. would you do that? >> we will look at it. there is a process for it. we want to see recent evidence of their support for terrorism. we're just beginning to look at it. >> the senator says that they never stop with these actions. >> we take very

and a korean tradition where for centuries korean leaders have made deals with the key neighbors rather than standing up to them. what his father did and what he did partly to legitimate their rule is we are standing up to all the great powers. that's very bad if he chooses to do it just with weapons. but as colin powell put it very well, you can't eat plutonium. if he chooses simply to stand up to the other powers, simply to go for strength and not for prosperity, that's not a very good solution for him. and it's certainly not a good solution for his successor whenever that person takes power down the road. so kim jong-il needs to move. >> so if any of you can respond to this question. is there any danger at all that in -- just going back to the table and pursuing this other route which i think you have to do it 'cause i don't think you have many choices. what is the danger level with respect to the reward of that behavior argument? >> well, clearly what we want to do is reward good behavior. and you only do things where, as i suggested with one kind of series of steps, you only do thi

a point not lost on north korean officials. given recent provocations have prospects for more concerted chinese actions have been improved. the broadest possible base to move ahead, i encourage the obama administration officials to actively consult with congress as they proceed in developing a comprehensive north korea strategy. i join with chairman kerry in welcoming our ambassador stephen bosworth and the others to today's hearing. we look forward to their insights and hopefully their inspiration. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator lugar. those are as always thoughtful and important questions you've asked and i'm confident we'll get the answers to them in the course of the afternoon. let me do say that we have two panels today and we'll try to get everybody through here in an appropriate manner. victor chai is the former asia director at the national security council and he's a professor at georgetown university. leon seigel is a professor at the social science research council in new york and author of

a point not lost on the north korean officials. given recent provocations have prospects for more concerted chinese actions been improved. facilitate the broadest possible basis moving ahead i encouraged the obama administration officials two actively consult with congress as they proceeded in developing a comprehensive north korea's strategy. i am joined with chairman kerry in welcoming our ambassador, nancy lindborg, and leon sigal today's hearing. we look for to there in size and hopefully their inspiration. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator lugar, as always they are thoughtful and important questions to ask and hopefully we will get the answers to in the course of the afternoon. let me say we do have two panels today and we will try to get everybody to hear at inappropriate manner. in victor cha is in the former asia director at the national security council and professor at georgetown university. evans riviera is the president of the three a society and former deputy assistant of east asian pacific affair

cha, dimensions in 2005 other countries voluntarily froze north korean assets. we had a similar situation in macau. that is important because you point out if in fact we had a security council resolution, and clearly a multinational, international idea here, that the sanctions at least through that forum would be much more comprehensive and complete. and the affected leadership, which is important. i suspect we can make some headway with some of the followers, but the leadership is what counts unfortunately at this particular moment, even thinking about negotiations. i am really struck by the fact that after the negotiations we have been involved then, after pyongyang is disassembled then so forth this reversal is really striking and then beyond that, nuclear tests, missiles flying over japan and all the rest of it. we can speculate whether they are having an internal problem politically but the effects on the rest of the world are very severe, and that would be in favor really of moving very strongly toward the economic sanctions route, but i think that may be

and the south korean -- korean -- the south koreans have a lot of bragging rights, a lot to be proud of. the north koreans stayed in their same soviet socialist republic a communist regime and basically, with the opings -- exception of building a gigantic army, they accomplished nothing since 1954 or 1956. and -- except to stir up will the of -- a lot of trouble in that area and to develop nuclear weapons and a missile system. now, there are some that think the north koreans are just in this business to sell the weapons to other people to give them something they can trade because they basically are practically without trade resources. but others like me and others fear that the north koreans are just unstable enough that they can use the weapons in this army to kick open the doors to the second korean war or worse. a regional war. they've done some things that in the past would have created havoc in countries. i mean they fired missiles in the direction of japan two or three times. shot a couple of them over japan. here's a sovereign nation being -- having a missile fired over their

this runs the risk of worsening tensions on the korean peninsula and throughout the area. mr. president, we hope that sense the resolution takes into account all possible facets of the issue, the resolution will make an effective contribution towards finding a lasting solution to the north korean nuclear issue. because these functions are targeting -- targeted, we hope the measures proved will effectively make it possible to avoid any - humanitarian impact on the population of north korea. this is also one of the reasons why we support the resolution. we call upon north korea to take up again cooperation with the international atomic agency and to return to negotiations, the six-party talks, this remains the most appropriate framework for ending the crisis. we invite the countries as well as all parties to do everything possible to choose dialogue. it is only the second prevent the escalation in the region. the security council and the whole of the international community have a particular responsibility in this area. within this farmer, we hope -- within this framework, we ho

i think many of you know that the resolution that was crafted on north korean sanctions passed unanimously a short while ago from the united nations, and ambassador rice will talk to us a little bit about that and answer a few of your questions. >> thanks very much, robert. afternoon, everybody. we are very pleased that the security council just, within the last 1.5 hours, passed unanimously a brand-new resolution imposing tough, new, meaningful sanctions on north korea in response to its nuclear tests and its other provocative behavior, including recent missile activity. this resolution is unprecedented. it is innovative. and it will cause the sanctions regime on north korea to be strengthened in five critical areas. first, the resolution begins by condemning north korean actions in the strongest possible terms and demands north korea halted a all nuclear activity, halt all missile activity and returned to the negotiation table. with the prerogative and threatening behavior of north korea, these five measures include the following, and i would like the deputy to -- i would like to go thro

we're not going to get into a tit-for-tat reaction to every north korean provocative act.ey know what they need to do to uphold their international obligations. we are intent on ensuring this tough regime is fully implemented. and correct it sounds like you said that there is no legal authority -- >> it sounds like you said there is no legal authority in the resolution to force a vessel back to port in the event that it does not submit to inspection. >> that is correct, there is not an authorization to use military force. >> do you wish that you had it? >> i think it is fair to say that we want, and we got a substantially enhanced inspection regime. there has never been before a regime with such clear-cut obligations and responsibilities for member states. it is a binding obligation for states to direct suspect vessels to port for mandatory inspection. obviously, as is the case in any instance, there are countries that gave something and got something. we feel we got a lot and we are pleased with this outcome >> when does it take effect? >> today. >> [inaudible] of all hum

. >> a think the north koreans announced the trial is starting. >> de and know that that is the truth? >> i do not know. >> you have not been able to independently confirmed that it has started? >> i will take the question of what our understanding is about the status of the trial. >> de know what the charges are -- do you know what the charges are? >> i will take that question as well. >> you have any more informational whether these girls have a defense lawyer. >> they do have defense lawyers. >> are they providing any kind of read out to the swedish embassy? >> as you know, there has been some communication from the two journalists back to their families. >> one last thing on speculation concerning a visit -- >> i have no information on that. >> i wanted to follow up if you could say anything more about their welfare? >> when the swedish ambassador met with them on monday, they found them to be, under the circumstances, reasonably good. >> when the secretary visited lemon on it -- let in on, she said she would visit in june. [unintelligible] >> the lebanese have an election coming

yeah, elizabeth. >> need to be additional defensive measures with south koreans and japanese? >> we were talking about this, on a trilateral bases would be ideal and on a bilateral basis if necessary and if it comes to that in allegro. but what we thought based on the conversations that have taken place this last week with deputy secretary steinberg of the state department and our representatives, a.s. the gregson as well as admiral when phil from the joint staff to travel to the capitols in the region this past week, they came back very encouraged particularly from seoul and tokyo about their willingness to pursue this on a trilateral basis. i think they came back feeling as though, in fact this was sort of a historic opportunity to work with the koreans and japanese on a trilateral bases on matters of national security like this. >> it is not about raising-- increasing u.s. forces in the region? bead this secretary is never talked about adding additional personnel and we have a lot of personnel as it is in the region. i think we have got 28,000 in korea and roughly 35,000 in

it also pointed to the north korean regime's horrific records on human rights abuses. pyongyang made a provocative and reprehensible decision just a few days ago in a secretive kangaroo court to sentence u.s. citizen journalist laura ying and laura lee to 12 years hard labor in the north korean gulags. it would provide release of our two u.s. citizens before the lifting of any u.s. sanctions or granting of diplomatic recognition. much of the language of my amendment had been accepted by the chairman last year and incorporated into the security, assistant and arms export control reform act of 2008. the foreign affairs committee unanimously adopted the agreed upon north korean language during markup held last may. yet, the amendment i offered to address this threat to u.s. national security interests and to our allies in the region was rejected yesterday by the rules committee. in conclusion, mr. chairman, at a time when our country faces a range of threats in our own hemisphere, this bill does not set out a comprehensive approach to those threats. the bill also displays

our two countries concluded a free trade agreement that now awaits approval by our congress and the korean national assembly. in my opinion the us dushes korea free trade agreement will bring tremendous benefits to both of our countries. international trade commission has forecast that the elimination of tariffs and u.s. goods under the agreement will increase our g.d.p. by about $11 billion a year. the agreement will also eliminate regulatory and other nontariff barriers that have historically restricted access by american farmers, manufacturers, and service providers. to the south korean market with growing difficulties, the health of our economy proposed, in my opinion this will be a win-win situation. a win for our workers, a win for our businesses, and a win for our consumers. but perhaps the most compelling argument supporting free trade agreement with this important

it is the north korean regime that commits real grave crimes against millions of north koreans every day. president obama himself must make it clear that this action cannot stand. now is the time for urgent action. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. himes: mr. speaker, it is-t has become amply clear to all americans, north, south, republican, democrat, rich, poor that our health care system is not just a moral embarrassment to the greatest country on earth but a severe economic liability. our auto companies and our corporations stagger under cost increases. our small businesses choose between covering their employees or taking a step towards insolvency. of course health care costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy for american families. we cannot fix this economy without reforming our health care system. we cannot be fiscally responsible without addressing the stunning economic wliblets that we have ass

and it's not just us who are interested in north korean ships. there are many others who are also keeping an eye on said ships. that said, with regards to the second part of your question, have we hailed this particular ship? we have not. but i wouldn't read anything too much into that. we are -- we are interested in that ship and other ships and we will continue to monitor them. >> what trigers the queery? >> i think that's a decision that will have to be made at some point, and not necessarily just by us or this got to the, but that is a decision that we will likely take collectively with our allies and partners out there. and make a determination about whether we choose to hail and queery this particular ship, and if we make that particular decision when and where to do so. but that has not been made yet and i don't get the -- we are in this for the long run. we are committed to working with our friends and partners and allies in the region to make sure that north korea is not able to proliferate weapons of mass destruction, nuclear capabiliti

of the but -- koreans. but i haven't heard it enter into these calculations to proceed to the north. the state department his issued strong remarks of the government's disapproval of that handling, but not entered into our discussions. >> how do you see that of the north koreans asking for the waters to be cleared to the east coast. are you concerned? >> do you mean in terms of a potential missile launch? the secretary acknowledged in manila, that they are preparing for another missile launch. what kind or range is not clear at this point. so that, you know, that would yet be another sign that the north is going to undertake another provocative action, that would of course, not help diffuse or de-escalate an already intense situation. >> is the goal of these talks that the defense officials were involved in, is that absolutely to prevent north korea to get nuclear weapons and not to deliver. or planning to respond if they do get nuclear weapons. >> are you talking about the steinberg? i think that effort an

. >> is there any information to suggest there might be disagreements within the north korean government regarding their nuclear policy? >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you senator shaheen guss senator corker, i know he has indicated to me he is not going to ask questions so this action follows if nation's recent nuclear underground test and subsequent missile testifieses in violation of previous security council resolutions. following the u.n. meeting, several members of the council spokes with reporters. this is about 25 minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. and today the security council has both spoken and acted decisively and clearly and unanimously. and through the security council the international community has made absolutely clear its determination to tackle the illegal provocative and dangerous activities of the north korean government. the resolution contains some significant tough measures with that objective in mind. it substantially expands and strengthens the arms embarg on north korea including the absolute ban on any arms exports from north korea, w

the deputy was a korean four- star. the korean language is complex. the native speakers of have their language simplified. we do not even have the multiple versions of "you." we ditched the informal "yous"a long time ago. many language have the formal and informal verb. koreans go further, they have separate verbs for each form. the commander came in and told me, the two-star general, -- he addressed me with the informal version of wishing me peace in korea. i responded with a formal. i will never forget the look on his face. he stopped, smiled, tilted his finger at me, and walked off. it was no credit to me. it is just a suggestion that this is more than just being polite. these are keys opening up relationships that lead it to knowledge. the sensitivity to the world beyond our shores has hard core information of value. i was with the head of intelligence for the european command during the un protection force in croatia and bosnia. in the fall of 1993, there was bitter fighting going on in eight bi-national town south of sarajevo. you're all familia

north korean ships? if so, are you sensing more of a willingness particularly on the part of the chinese to monitor and interdict north korean ships? >> i will just say when i was in singapore, i had bilateral meetings with both my south korean and japanese counterparts, and then we had the first ever tri-bilateral meeting of the defense ministers of the three countries. our focus was on how we improve our defensive capabilities together in response to what is going on in north korea. i am not aware, i certainly have not had any communications with the chinese in terms of north korea. >> i have not, although i know admiral keating has engaged both japanese and south korea, and i am not aware of any contact with china. >> you correctly said in terms of pakistan, there was a ship after long time of paying lip service, pakistan takes the taliban as a threat. is there a shift in the way that the chinese view north korea and are more amenable to the thought that north korea is a problem for them as well, not

he was the first korean to teach at the yale law school in 1969. dean koh has really an extraordinary record. his curriculum vitae fills eight pages of very small print. he has a long list of honorary degrees. he received a number of medals. his list of honors and awards goes on virtually indefinitely. his publications, books and monographs occupy one, two, three, four, five, six and a half pages. his select legal activities, another half page. he can tiewrs that h lectures t, many. teaching activities, voluminous. boards of editors, professional affiliations, presentations, and workshops, boards, bars, members of the bar that he's associated with. i ask unanimous consent that this full text be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: it's going to be expensive but it's worth it. i've been a member of this body for some time. i have never seen anyone with this kind of a resume. and i'm going to ask senator byrd the next time i see him if he knows of anybody who has a resume which is this extensive and this impre

navy would take working with other partners against north korean ships? what other vessels might need to be sent there? 11 this began? >> i don't know that i'm going to get into those kind of operational details and i don't know that it requires frankly initial steps to be sent to the region. i think that we have a host of assets in the pacific, in and around the waters that north korean ships which favors dad -- but i think fundamentally, gordon, i think our authorities and responsibilities when the united nations survey council resolution 1874 are clear and we have the resources and assets in the region that would allow us to perform our duties under that and so we continue to as we have for quite some time to monitor north korean shipments and should as the security council resolution calls for should reasonable grounds -- should there be reasonable grounds to believe that one of those ships is carrying banned cargo we have the authority is under the security council resolution to take action. >> from a practical standpoint of the ships in port reducin

now, it's common knowledge in testimony last week in the senate that the north koreans and iranians were working together on nuclear, on the development of or nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. so north korea does pose a threat in their proliferation of nuclear weapons. the israelis had to attack and destroy a facility in syria that was being built with the assistance of the north koreans. some very serious situations in north korea. now the u.n. resolution is inadequate is the kind of description i can give you because they say that they, that they, we cannot board one of these ships but follow it into port and expect the people who run the port to have the inspection. well, this ship that we're talking about or at least one of 'em is headed for myanmar. they're not going to inspect the ship and among other things it could refuel and head towards iran or head towards another unfriendly country. so we should in the interest of national security if we know -- and we have intelligence capability -- that a north korean ship is carrying technology or weapons or systems that could endang

resupply to the korean and chinese armies were unimpeded, the north koreans were not at all forced to go to the peace table which is another thing you will see over and over again. at the same time, you saw from the budget charts that there is a huge spike in spending particularly for the air force, the air force diverted all that money, spend none of it on korea and diverted it into nuclear bombers, couldn't possibly be used, took the money and ran for their own hobbies. they cut our fighters to a thousand. antiquated fighters were unsuited for the mission. they got decimated. we kept feeding from our inventory. when we ran out of them, we force the f 4 down the secretary's for wrote. quickly converted to a strategic bomber, lost 445 of those, so we had a thousand airplanes doing strategic bombing, you will see the results in a moment. in the south, there was a support efforts. the ancient propeller airplane it did so well for the navy and korea, we only had 50 of them, but they did brilliant work. so you see it again. all we did was stiffen the resistance of the north. coach seamen'

i think as we have said many times before, the increasingly -- the reactions of the north koreans in alienating themselves from their own responsibilities and isolating themselves from the rest of the world, that they are going alone down a different path. the president believes there is a different way for north korea, and i think what he discussed today with president lee was a continuation of the strong relationship that we have with the republic of korea. and the strong international reactions and steps that have been taken to coordinate that responds it could take some extremely tough actions, all of what ambassador rice outlined just last week. i remember not long after the first launch in late march and early april, there was some vast skepticism that tough actions and steps could be agreed upon by a group of five nations, a group of 15 nations. not only would be agreed upon, but they are now being implemented in how is the president getting information regarding iran right now? is he just reacting to news reports that everybody is saying? you guys have some intelligence on th

north korean regime preferring they would not do them. this is a regime that kidnaps actors and civilians. they kidnapped japanese to find good teachers of did -- japanese culture. they kidnapped filmmakers. so this is a regime that carry its our currency, deals drugs, uses diplomatic service to sneak into other countries. the seizure of these journalists is not the greatest abuse of this regime. host: rockville, maryland. democrat line. you are on with john sherman. caller: thank you so much. i'm basically calling in response to the myriad issues facing the current administration right now. i did not see our foreign policy to change it all that much. i am by no means an anti-semitic person. but i would like to say, however, that there seems to be a certain dysfunctional society as a whole. our finance rules need to be reformed. too many senators are beholden to to any interest. -- too many interests. guest: when you start saying that u.s. corporations are controlled by israel, you seem to be using as real as a code for jewish people. you

as we speak, there is a destroyer named after my father and grandfather that is tracking a north koreanssel. there is published information that it may be carrying weapons or technology that our nuclear in nature. -- that our nuclear in nature. it is common knowledge that the north koreans and iranians were working together on nuclear -- the development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. so, north korea does pose a threat in their proliferation of nuclear weapons. the israelis had to attack and destroy a facility in syria that was being built with the assistance of the north koreans. it is a very serious situation in north korea. now, the u.n. resolution is inadequate as the kind of description i can give you because they say, we cannot afford one of these ships, but follow it into port and expect the people that are in the port to have the inspection. well, this sport is headed for me and more. me and more is not going to -- for myanmar. myanmar is not going to inspect this ship. we should, and the interest of national security if we know, and we have intelligence capabilityç,

want to have any -- we didn't want to have any kind of resolution that would harm necessarily the korean people. that is what we're focused on right now, it's only been a couple of days since we have this resolution and we need to work out the details of implementation. but we're going to work with what we have right now. >> isn't the the family, kim jong-il and his younger son, are they, in fact, operating a thugocracy? >> operating --? >> thugocracy. >> that is a new one, it is not the most transparent and and a cattle government derrin in the world and. >> with north korea now fellas belligerent activity and threatening nuclear attack in nuclear war, sell-through rhianna seems to want to extend the nuclear umbrella deterrence written some agreement. you think this should be a good opportunity at this point to stand the agreement to set aside immunity to north korea by putting something down in writing? >> i haven't seen that report and it if there is a formal proposal we will look at but beyond that i really don't want to say. also number three and? >> one more. >> the two journalists

the north koreans continue to make statements bellicose statements, threatening different actions many times, what they threaten they eventually do and that further alien natures north korea from the rest of the world and i think that has helped the world take unified action, strong steps to ensure that we are taking all necessary action to ensure that there is not the ability for north korea to export weapons or export material that would lead to proliferation. that's been our focus. >> the president said when he was asked in the interview, taking contingencies does not mean a military response necessarily. but what -- how else can one understand that? what else could "contingencies"mean? >> what the previous referred to by taking all necessary steps to deal with whatever threat comes out on the north korea. >> what does that mean? >> what does that mean? i think i'd refer you to what secretary gates said last week about moving different systems out into the pacific in order to ensure the protection of the united states of america. i'm speaking more about the sort of outer edge of the

i mean, the invasion took place, that's what started the korean war. they've got the largest -- one of the largest armies in the world. they're saying that they have canceled the armistice. now, under technical rules of war, canceling an armistice re-instates the war. we're not treating it that way. because regular rules of war kind of have been changed, not by what's written in the books, but by usage. so we never really called it a war, we called it a conflict and so forth, like we've done in so many other things we do. but the reality is they said the armistice is off, which means we should be technically back fighting. they said they're going to fire a missile on our independence day, the fourth of july. now why do i bring that up? because by my watch, this is the 23rd day of june. we've got to be able to trust our intelligence committee and our intelligence community in what? that's the next 10 days, in the next 10 days we have to be able to have that confidence in them. and we've already got the third most -- the third person in line for the pres

pacific commander includes conversation on the north korean missile testing at 5:30 eastern on c-span. >> file sharing has wreaked havoc on our business. >> tonight on "the communicators" copyright policy with the chairman of universal music publishing group. >> one of the goal is to have the isp's take more responsibility of the service they are providing and make sure they're not just providing an entree into intellectual property for free. >> the chairman of universal music publishing group tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> now more from this morning's "washington journal." peter brooks is a national security fellow at the heritage foundation, there is a report looking at the commission of prevention of weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism. this commission was put together in 2008. guest: i am not a member of this commission. it is -- headed by bob graham. in the standard commission has been extended. they have been extended for a few more months. host: they deliver their report to president bush last -- late last year and testify befo

>> i hesitate for a number of reasons to speak for the north koreans. >> [unintelligible] >> let me characterized some things about north korea. they have stated a lot of bellicose things. that threatens to do certain things. a lot of times with a threat to do, they follow up on. but this administration, whether it is through sanctions and monitoring of north korea potentially moving any sort of arms out of their country through proliferation, what ambassador rice negotiated in the past at the un security council is part of it. it is also a stepped-up role in ensuring that we're cutting off any potentially harmful financing. in this case, we have been fairly explicit with the north koreans about the responsibilities they entered into that we expect them to live up to. i think today's action demonstrates the seriousness of what we intend to do to address it. >> was any consideration given to the kind of reactions -- >> obviously, a lot of stuff is factored in. you can assume that we have taken that into account and decided the best thing going forward or the actions taken today and t

you have any further information on what indications you're getting about the north korean plans for this missile launch? the you have any more specific concerns about potential of a missile? >> we have seen this movie, where we are not sure there should be a sequel. all we know at this point is, if the north koreans fire of another missile, it will be a mistake. >> obviously, you do not want to see a missile go off if there is a danger that it will hit someone or something. >> their aim is not exactly been their strong suit so far. >> doesn't really affect your diplomatic corps s -- it does it really affects your diplomatic course? >> what goes up must comeow

in a news conference about korean relations he was asked about it. >> i have said before that i have deep concerns about the election. i think that the world has deep concerns about the election. you have seen in i riran some initial reaction from the supreme leader that hitters stance that the iranians people have concerns. it is not productive given the history of the u.s./iranian relations to be seen as meddling -- the u.s. president meddling in iran and elections. what i will repeat as i said yesterday is that when i see violence directed at peaceful protesters, when i see a peaceful dissent suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is a concern to me and of concern to the american people. host: "the new york post" and other paper is a jump on that comment. it's as big chaos reigned in at the streets of tehran yesterday, a situation which caused president obama "deep concerns." the phrase is repeated. when hundreds of thousands took to the streets to protest a highly dubious election, the government's violent reaction was predictable but unacceptable and the president should have

something that i care a lot about, because a case that a prosecutor earlier in my career involved korean women from parts of china that are near north korea. one of the things you will see with the ethnically korean population in that part of china is that neither china nor north korea seems to want to protect the population. north korea is tier 3 and has been for quite some time. one thing we have seen in necessary for korea to do is to actually screen returnees for trafficking. a lot of people who are caught in china and in labour situations or in prostitution, first of all, the chinese are not screening them. when they deport them back to north korea, we're hearing from non-governmental organizations that those victims are being punished for having left the country in the first place, rather than actually been given the kind of services and a kind of rehabilitation that a trafficking victim should get under international law. >> thank you all. >> coming up on c-span, a senate confirmation hearing on nominees to the federal communications commission. then, a house committee hears from

government has been watching several north korean vessels right now, which are possibly carrying weapons. are you going to keep watching the vessel continuously? until when? second, do we have any expectation when the north korean launch will be, and what we are -- what we should be ready for? thank you. >> sure. our response is and is it 6:00? -- are we not supposed to finish at 6:00? [laughter] north korea as activities are disturbing and unsettling for all of us. as far as shipment of proscribed cargo, i cannot comment on operational matters like that with intelligence matters. our president has said he is satisfied that the pacific command and the military of the united states is well prepared to execute whatever did mention he gives us. you can read whatever or not you choose to read into that. as far as the launch from north korea, the recent launch following by a couple of years the july of 2006 launched, the secretary of defense just said a couple of weeks ago -- i think he said it very well, we are prepared to protect americans and american property and american citizens and ame

the north koreans have been saying the opposite. we want nuclear-weapons, we are seeking nuclear weapons, and now we have nuclear weapons. that makes it much tougher to negotiate about an arrangement which includes nuclear weapons. the iranians are out of their seat, but maybe they are saying we are not building nuclear weapons, we don't have nuclear- weapons, our religion forbids us to have nuclear weapons. that provides a point of departure, saying to them, this is reassuring, but we have some legitimate doubts to question the degree of your commitment to these propositions. one might even be applied and say we have some reservations about your veracity, but let us use this as a point of departure anaiming at establishing a arrangements that give us reason to take these assertions as the truth. that then gets us into the discussion of what is still feasible in that regard. in fact, halting iranian enrichment is pretty much overdue, because they have advanced so far. the opportunity to negotiate with them have been wasted. perhaps