NORTHEAST ASIA PEACE AND SECURITY NETWORK ***** SPECIAL REPORT ***** Excerpts on North Korea from the U.S. Democratic Candidates for President Debate in Iowa November 25, 2003 A world wide web version of this report can be found at: http://www.nautilus.org/pub/ftp/napsnet/special_reports/USDemDebateDPRK.txt The following is an excerpt of the portion on North Korea during the Democratic candidates' debate in Iowa sponsored by MSNBC and the Democratic National Committee, as transcribed by FDCH e-Media, Inc. This was originally published in the New York Times on November 24, 2003. Copyright (c) 2003 Nautilus of America / The Nautilus Institute -------------------- November 24, 2003 Democratic Candidates for President Debate in Iowa TOM BROKAW, NBC ANCHOR: Good afternoon from Des Moines, Iowa, where in less than 60 days the Iowa caucuses, the first round in what could be a long and spirited fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. And MSNBC and NBC News, in cooperation with the Democratic National Committee, is proud and privileged to present this debate for two hours today among Democratic candidates for their presidential nomination... Let's begin by introducing all the candidates for you now. In Washington, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Senator Kerry, thanks for being with us. KERRY: Thank you. BROKAW: Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. KUCINICH: Thank you, sir. BROKAW: Governor Howard Dean. Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun. Congressman Richard Gephardt. Former General Wesley Clark. The Reverend Al Sharpton. From North Carolina, in Washington as well, Senator John Edwards. Thank you all very much for being with us... A reminder: These candidates will have 60 seconds to respond to a question, 30 seconds for a follow-up or for a rebuttal. We do hope to have a very vigorous exchange here today, across a wide range of issues, including their individual character and their values as well. I'd like to remind the audience, however, that if you would keep your applause or your boos or your hisses to yourself until the very conclusion, so that we can cover as much ground as we possibly can. [Begin Excerpt] BROKAW: There's another threat out there, Congressman Gephardt, that's not getting as much attention in the last couple of months, and it was really on the radar screen about a year ago, and it has not gone away, and that's North Korea. The North Koreans now are saying, through diplomats and through back channels, that they would be willing to dismantle their nuclear capability if the United States would sign a non-aggression pact, if it would compensate the North Koreans for what they've lost and what they've invested in their nuclear capability and if they could do economic programs with China and with Japan. Would you buy that package from the North Koreans? GEPHARDT: I think this president has gotten us backed into a very dangerous place with North Korea. BROKAW: You don't think it began in the Clinton administration? GEPHARDT: No, the Clinton administration was a few days away from bombing the reactors in 1994. He instead sent Bill Perry. They got an agreement, which was better than attacking the reactors. GEPHARDT: It was holding. It wasn't perfect... BROKAW: But they continued to build. GEPHARDT: But you got a very unreliable regime in North Korea you got to deal with. And understand if we attack the reactors, they got a million people under arms. They'll come at our 30,000 people and the only way we can stop them is with tactical nuclear weapons. So this is a dangerous situation. When Bush came in office, he called the agreement that Clinton had appeasement. He then put them in the axis of evil without explaining to anybody what in the world that was. And then he called the leader in North Korea the most evil leader in the world. Now this guy's half nuts anyway. So now you've got a very dangerous situation. And the president of the United States has backed us into this situation. He should go and get a negotiation going and get to the bottom of this. You don't lose anything by negotiating with somebody. He doesn't have to have the shape of the table exactly as he wants it. But he needs to get back to an enforceable agreement because I am more worried tonight that the A bomb will wind up in the hands of terrorists from the North Koreans than the Iraqis. That is a failure. BROKAW: I think that it's fair to say, historically, Congressman Kucinich, the chances of having a successful negotiation with Kim Jong Il are remote or slim at best. If he continues to develop his nuclear capability and develop weapons as well, will the time come and what is that threshold when the United States may be forced to do what Congressman Gephardt said the Clinton administration was prepared to do: make a unilateral strike against North Korea? KUCINICH: Well, let's take this in context, Tom. The context now is that President Bush launched an attack on Iraq which did not attack the United States. He mentioned Iraq, Iran and North Korea in the same breath as an axis of evil. KUCINICH: If you're sitting there in North Korea, and you see one of those countries checked off, you think you're going to be next. So what I believe, as president, what I will do is I will go and meet with Kim. I will set forth a whole new doctrine for this United States, taking us away from unilateralism and preemption and toward cooperation. Tom, we've lost our credibility. BROKAW: Non-aggression? KUCINICH: I'm saying that we must believe that peace is inevitable. When you work from a premise that war is inevitable, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And what I'm saying is that, as president, I would work with the community of nations, but go to these people who are afraid. Look what we've done to North Korea: We've made them so afraid that they think that we're going to attack them. We have to get out of that posture. And that's why, as the next president, I'm prepared to take America in a totally different direction on foreign policy where people will not fear us. Everyone knows we have the strength. But people need to have confidence in our word and that we're not going to go and attack them. And finally, Tom, we need to get rid of these nuclear weapons. Our credibility is on the line. We should not be building nuclear weapons. We should be enforcing the Non-Proliferation Treaty which calls on all nations to get rid of nuclear weapons. (APPLAUSE) BROKAW: Governor Dean, is there a threshold for the North Koreans if they go beyond it, that you would be forced, as commander in chief, to order a strike? DEAN: There's always a threshold. And no president ever rules out any options at any time. BROKAW: Are offers non-aggression? DEAN: Well, that's -- I disagree with that. DEAN: I think the offer that the president of North Korea has on the table has real promise. It depends how the non-aggression treaty must be structured. We can sign such a treaty if it does not preclude us from coming to the defense of our allies, particularly South Korea. I have long believed -- and George Bush has pooh-poohed this and he was wrong and his own experience showed he was wrong -- I have long believed that constructive engagement works. And I'll give you an example: George Bush pooh-poohed this during the 2000 campaign with Al Gore, principally because he didn't think of it first. Now, the truth is, a short time after President Bush came into office, a Chinese fighter plane ran into our spy plane off the international air space. Our spy plane came down, our crew came down, and all were returned within 10 days. Why? Because the Chinese didn't want to lose several hundred billions dollars worth of trade with the United States. Constructive engagement works. In the long run, we will have more leverage over the behavior of North Korea if they are inside the international tent than if they are outside. So I think we ought to enter into bilateral negotiations with the North Koreans. I think this president is making a big mistake in refusing to do this. Hopefully he has not missed the opportunity to disarm them through negotiations. [End Excerpt] The full text of the debate can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/24/politics/campaigns/24TEXT-DEBATE.html