China and the U.S. are likely to hold talks with North Korea on its nuclear program in early September, but Pyongyang must agree to immediately include Japan and South Korea for the negotiations to proceed, Kyodo news agency reported on Thursday. We discuss the North Korean nuclear threat and the broader consequences for Asia and the world with Roy Grow, Carleton College International Relations professor.
Read the Text Transcription of the Audio.
(00:00:00) From Minnesota Public Radio. I'm (00:00:02) Stephen John Wisconsin. Governor Doyle has signed a nearly 49 billion dollar state budget the budget solves a deficit of more than three billion dollars without raising sales corporate or income taxes, the Democratic governor vetoed a republican provision that set up strict limits on local property taxes months and printing is shutting down its plant in Red Wing displacing 35 employees, Minnesota public radio's Rob Schmidt's reports the decision follows Munson's merger with Minnetonka based printing company Wallace W Carlson. The new company will be based in Minnetonka and retain the Wallace name. The merger will take effect August 1st. According to Munson printing president Tom lock way the 35 employees from Munson in the 25 employees from Wallace May apply for 40 positions in the new company leaving 20 employees from the combined labor pool without jobs lock way says declining revenues forced the merger Munson's annual sales slipped one and a half million dollars in the past. Here the company has been located in Red Wing for 72 years. Rob Schmidt's Minnesota Public Radio Rochester new evidence suggests prosecutors were right about the infamous murders of a wealthy heiress and her nurse in Duluth. A Duluth TV station says DNA evidence points to Roger Caldwell as the killer in the 1977 deaths of mining Aris Elisabeth Congdon and nurse Velma. Pietila Caldwell was freed on appeal. He later pleaded guilty but was sentenced only to the time served. He killed himself in 1988 and his suicide note proclaimed his innocence partly to mostly sunny across Minnesota today becoming windy in the South highs from the upper 70s North East to the upper 80s in the west 73 and Marshall this hour 75 in the Twin Cities. I'm Steven John, Minnesota Public Radio. Good morning and welcome to. Midday. I'm Mike Edgerly sitting in today for Gary eichten. It's not just the Forgotten War. It's the Unsettled War fifty years ago this weekend. The Korean war ended with an Armistice not a peace treaty the koreas were left divided and technically still at War the war left. 36,000 Americans dead events marking the end of the conflict and the loss of life in the three-year long war begin tomorrow. The commemorations will take place against the backdrop of high tensions between the u.s. And North Korea report suggests North Korea possesses some primitive, but dangerous nuclear weapons within the past two months US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered military commanders to devise a new war plan for a possible conflict with North Korea just this morning President Bush and South Korea's president talked by telephone. They agreed to keep pushing for talks on North Korea's nuclear program North Korea responded by saying it would treat any new US high-tech weapons deployed in South Korea as technical tactical nuclear weapons, and the country would respond. Kind the Bush Administration is considering the deployment of more modern weapons in the region to augment the 37 thousand US troops posted in South Korea Our Guest this hour is an authority on Asia and international relations. Roy grow is a Carleton college professor of international relations. Mr. Gros. Welcome back to mid-day. Like it's good to be here the u.s. Led by President Clinton almost went to war with North Korea in 1994 over over the nuclear weapons issue. What are the options facing President Bush? Mr. Grove this time around we've gone right to the edge so many times with North Korea. Of course, the problem comes from the fact that what we're really engaged in is the one might call it the endgame of a 50 year old war. We're celebrating this weekend the 50th anniversary of the Armistice the Armistice the ceasefire the stop the the first Korean War. The problem was an Armistice is not a piece. I'm an Armistice means that we just stop shooting with depth at one another with not really Solve the issues and over the last couple of decades we've gone back and going back again to the to the issues that we never really quite come to grips with them from the Korean perspective the North Korean perspective. They think that the United States is out to get them what your statements that you just write indicated or that if the United States puts more weapons on the Korean Peninsula, they'll regard that as a continuation of the war that we thought ended in 1953. But in fact the war really never did in fact the war never really ended and one analysis I read recently said that this is the last the the the confrontation the relationship between the u.s. And North Korea is the Last Frontier in the cold war. Is that is that a fair analysis? It's a good analysis Korea in 1950 was the first Hot shooting of the the Cold War sure. There'd been the Berlin crisis before that. They're been greased their than turkey them as some of the other problems but 1950. That was the first Hotshot 19. 53 we ended that part of the war all of the other regimes that we were in conflict with we've come to some sort of accommodation with them. But Korea no now the real thing in the point of your question, the reason I was hesitating a little bit there is yeah sure. It might be thought of as the last shot in the Cold War but in some ways in some ways we can think of it as the opening the opening shots along with Iraq for what's going to come in the next decade or two in this way Korea in 2003. There were remarkably Eerie pure parallels with American foreign policy in 1950 how so we're on the edge and as we as we faced Korea in 1950, what we were really facing was a civil war. We were facing a civil war that had years of background nationalist versus versus fairly conservative folks in in the South people that were committed to the Soviet Union people committed to the United States. It is broken. The 1948 and it had gone on for a couple of years and it just continued to unfold the end of the war the end of the war inclusive as it was almost all historians argue. It served as a bridge to what was coming next the way we settled the war the mindset we came out of the war with who we regarded as an enemy the sense of theory the so-called domino effect that we saw coming across Asia who we defined as the enemy the Soviet Union who we thought was was was sort of manipulating China manipulating Korea. It's set the mindset at set the precedent for Vietnam for Cuba for some of the things that we did in Europe and in some ways what we're doing in Iraq right now, but we're doing in Korea right now is defining these same things defining e and an enemy defining a mechanism defining a strategy whether it's right or not. I suspect 40 years from now you and I might be debating Our Guest is Roy grow Carleton college professor of international relations. Shins and Authority on Asia and international relations. We'd like to hear from you. You can reach us by telephone at 6512276 Thousand that's in the metro area, six five. One two, two seven six thousand or toll free anywhere. You can hear our voices 802 for 22828. That's one eight hundred to four two two eight two eight. Mr. Grow. The one difference this time is that we believe the Bush Administration believes in a way that North Korea possesses and is manufacturing more nuclear weapons. That was not the case in 1950. Is that correct, sir? In 1950. The nuclear weapon issue was slightly different it was of course Atomic weapons and the Soviet Union had just exploded their first atomic bomb in that sort of changed the American the American mindset without going into sort of The Gallows humor about American intelligence right now whether American intelligence in either Korea or Iraq is Or not I think most of the the outside experts agree that for about the last 10 to 15 years. The North Korean regime has had a fairly energetic program of development of both nuclear material and especially the missiles that can deliver that those those weapons. It's a scary program. There may be as many as a thousand weapons of different ranges that the new that the North Koreans can fire off in anywhere from 45 seconds to 20 minutes depending on the type and the preparation. So it's not just the presence of a nuclear device. It's actually the delivery system that that gives the the North Koreans makes the North Korean situation more of a threat that's one piece of it the delivery system the weapons that they have and the fact that some of those the longest at the moment can hit every piece in Japan and there's a good indication that maybe within the next five years some pieces of North America would be would be vulnerable but that's not what makes Korea dangerous. What makes Korea dangerous has to do with the interplay of the North Korean regime. And the American and the American government there's the friction point to the degree that the Korea North Korea has been developing this program for the last 15 years. It's sort of a constant and to the degree that it is a constant. You look done for the other factors that make the relationships between the United States and Korea are really hot spot right now. The Bush Administration abandoned talks with North Korea in 2001. Did this decision anticipate the fact that we would be here today in 2003 with this threatening situation. Do you believe in many respects that not it didn't anticipate it. It caused it it what the Bush Administration did in 2001 was basically put into practice what they've been saying well out of power ever since the 1994 framework agreement and that of course was the agreement that the United States President Clinton Jimmy Carter negotiated that that exchanged on the surface at any rate North Korean commitment to not go further in their nuclear program. For non-military types of reactors plus heavy oil now embedded in that deeply embedded in that that that argument most analysts agree was also an American commitment not to strike North Korea first and that gets us back to the 1950s ceasefire Armistice the fact that the Korean still regard Us and Them at war with one another and of all the things that were important in the Clinton agreement. It was that sense that we will not strike first and that's what President Bush gave up. He said no way no way and that would have been one of his campaign promises and it also been one of the major one of the major themes in the Republican attack on President Clinton during the 1990s. You can join our conversation with Roy grow Carleton college professor of international relations at 6512276 Thousand or 1-800 to for to to 82818 hundred two, four two two eight two eight. Well, mr. Grow as you mentioned given the debate over. Us intelligence and how the Bush Administration applied it to the run up on the war in Iraq. How credible are these reports that North Korea is in fact now or soon will be a nuclear threat to this country and and to its own Neighbors in Asia the pretty credible they come out of the 1990s not out of 2001 or 2002. We were getting indications 1996-1997 of soil samples of detonators of a reactivation of some of the plants and our sense was that that that there was a program in in motion. It's been half a dozen years and I think we're all agreed that there are nuclear facilities that there's a good scientific establishment and there are plans for real weapons to put on the tips of these missiles the question becomes. Why does it become a threat rather than to something? We see out there, right? The sense of threat I think comes out of in this administration of very very different orientation towards towards foreign policy. How one actually changes another regime that's out there. The Clinton folks the Clinton folks right or wrong. We're committed to a slow gradual Evolution as sort of a China like change or in east Europe to like change where we're gradually forces within the Marxist party build up in terms of debating Economic Development versus military priorities. And so the Clinton folks began to think we'll how do we stimulate that debate like it was going on in China like it was going on in east Europe like was going on with Gorbachev and his opponents in the Soviet Union. The idea was you you build constructively you reach out to those points in a regime those points in a regime that are mutable to change you encourage them. You build Bridges you encourage investment those kinds of things and gradually over a decade it begins to Change the internal nature of the regime you're talking about the bush people especially Paul wolfowitz Richard Perle the people in the defense department today said no you start at the top and you engage in sort of a radical regime change where you you put military pressure on you remove the top people and this sort of democracy, which is there all along the sort of ebullient democracy will begin to Bubble Up. And so this sense of the Bush folks was that the Clinton people were very very wrong the what needed to be done was very very more much more intense confrontation and a real moved not to regime change in the sense of regime Evolution, but regime change and literally replace literally replaced the folks at the top and do we see that happening? Is there any move at all that would indicate that that in fact is a possibility what we saw in the 1990s was a sense of debate going on within the regime Kim il-sung Son. Kim Jong-il came to power. 1994 after 46 years of his dad ruling it took him a couple of years, but by 1996 97 we were seeing him talking about policies such as removing government government subventions government grants to State industry of encouraging foreign investment of taking Korean firms into places like Thailand a whole range of issues. It was gradual at first and then it expanded into outright invitations to American leaders specifically Madeleine Albright who who went in the last days of the of the Clinton Administration the debate was real what changed the debate was. I think the very confrontational statements that came out of the Bush Administration in early 2000, sir, early 2001, which all of a sudden put the Liberals in North Korea on the defensive and gave the Army the military the Hawks the conservatives in North Korea a real argument that the world was still dangerous in terms of the Korean War. We're talking about the u.s. Relationship with North Korea and the possible North Korea nuclear threat this our midday. I'm Mike Edgerly in today for Gary. Eichten. You can join our conversation at 6'5 12276 thousand 6512276 thousand that's in the Twin Cities or toll-free 1-800-221-9460 to 828. Let's go to the phones Lee and Minneapolis you're on with us. (00:15:22) Hi you I'm actually on Interstate 90 heading towards South Dakota. And I think part of my question was answered about the difference between the Clinton Administration the Bush Administration and bushes Cowboy attitude towards foreign policy. But my other question was is North Korea's sense of vulnerability heightened given what has happened in the Soviet Union. Being even with Cuba there seems to be some cracks in. Our relationship is North Korea feeling like the last guy (00:16:01) standing good question. Good question lie. Yeah the Soviet model the the Soviet the Soviet president scares. A lot of people not just in Korea, but in in China as well and they argue very very vehement lie that that they're not going to go the same route that especially the Hawks say look what happened to the Soviet Union as they tried to liberalize they liberalized but they lost they lost the war so to speak the the Marxist party of course didn't survive 1991 the the scarier precedent. Of course for for North Korea is Iraq and for the last couple of years, of course, not only and famously has the Bush Administration talked about North Korea in terms of the axis of Evil Iraq, Iran and North Korea, but North Korea has also been one of only two states officially labeled Rogue Tara. States in terms of nuclear materials and missiles President Bush labeled them in late nineteen and star in late 2001 early 2002 Rogue States and carried with that some policies that meant that that American foreign policy was going to be directed towards really changing those regimes the more the United States became involved in Iraq. And the more that involvement turned into war the more scared the North Korean regime became and the more the Hawks in North Korea dominated the policy stage. So this is a question of internal fear in North Korea. It would seem that's that's where you seem to be leading us here in so many ways the North Koreans are still fighting the Korean War right? And so many ways they still see the major enemy as as the United States in so many ways the people there remember in ways that even the Vietnamese don't remember about their War. They remember the several million people who were killed in the North Vietnamese side. They remember that Pyongyang the capital of North Korea was almost leveled in some really devastating bombing attacks and they especially remember things like General MacArthur statements that nuclear weapons are Atomic weapons are to be used both in North Korea. And in the edge of China that did bordered North Korea these things remain scary to the Kim regime to this day. Let's go back to the phone Steve and st. Paul you're on with Roy (00:18:17) grow morning. Thanks. Sure back to the question of giving you're taking back our prerogative to provide a first strike or deliver a first strike. I wonder if we know how the North Koreans view some of the constructs of the Cold War that kept us in the Soviet Union from from bombing each other specifically some of the issues around a taunt and mutually assured destruction. Some of those kinds of things of is that clear with the regime (00:18:43) really good question Steve and and yes their argument about the nuclear program, of course is that it's defensive and your use of the term balance of Terror is just right they argue that the Notice States won't dare attack in a first-strike sense situation. So long as North Korea has both the nuclear weapons and the delivery system to inflict an inappropriate amount of damage on on an enemy. They regard their nuclear weapons is primarily defensive and they fit within that cold war framework that you're mentioning that so long as they have them and we have them they'll be a balance in both sides will be so terrorized at the aftermath of a war that they won't dare use them and the North Korean conclusion is that not only will peace result but that their safety will be assured. This sounds awfully familiar. Doesn't it? I mean, it sounds like the cold war of the the 70s and 80s. It sounds like the cold war of the 70s and 80s, but as almost all nuclear theorists argue from Henry Kissinger to John mearsheimer as awful as having those nuclear weapons were we didn't have a nuclear war and it's only been as people like the current crop of political scientists argue. It's only been in the last 10 years after the balance of Terror has been destroyed that all of this conflict across the world has been breaking out. I'm not sure I agree with her argument but their argument is that that balance of Terror the fact that there were nuclear weapons on both sides preempted the slide into other kinds of violence because the world was just too dangerous to let it occur. This is also occurred as the US has emerged as sort of the lone superpower in the world. Well the lone superpower many theorists argue that that's that's a very dangerous situation. The lone superpower can act as a sort of Lone Ranger if it acts correctly. It can keep the peace but keeping the peace is a lonely and expensive job and is we're seeing in Iraq regime change doesn't mean just getting rid of Saddam and and and the 54 other people in that deck of cards. It means really fundamentally changing a society changing a society in terms of bringing about institutions participation a sense of I'm not Sunni or Shiite, but I'm a rocky that takes years and years 222 due to the degree that it's going to take resources. I think the real question has to do with American staying power in that part of the in that part of the world and that also then moves over into the Korean case because to the degree that so many of our brigades so much of our resource so much of our treasure is involved in that one place. We may not just simply have the resources to involve ourselves deeply on the Korean Peninsula at the moment. We'd like you to join our conversation with Roy grow. Professor of international relations at Carleton College. Our telephone numbers are 6 512276 thousand in the Twin Cities or toll-free 1-800-221-9460 for 22828. Let's go to Babu in Eden Prairie. You're on with Professor grow (00:21:48) High a how-to questions for once. It's not Korea has directed The preoccupation with the Iraq and Afghanistan and I want to know the Chinese government role in this this thing without the avatars completely on this or they are neutral or David's not Korea. Thank you. I think the answer will be. Yes. (00:22:11) Thank you. So the question is is China and its role in this in this situation, but it's a good question. It's as you might know, I'm just just back from China. We sort of I was there with a group of my own my own students and we sort of beat our way out in front of the SARS epidemic that was moving across China in April and May and there's no question that the that the Chinese leaders as well as people in the street are focused on Iraq Afghanistan and Korea and basically our sense of what we saw on the street and as we watch the TV coverage of the Iraqi War and it was really actually quite good coverage of people say that the Chinese media really came of age during their coverage of the Iraqi War. They they had people on site they were they were broadcasting with CNN clips and BBC clips and it was it was really quite good. But the impression that you got as you watch Chinese, TV focus on both Iraq and cover Korea was that the United States was was was was was giving itself some self-inflicted wounds that it was in over its head that it didn't quite understand the nature of the conflicts that were there. That was the that was the street scene that we got an official China when we talked to officials in the Chinese government to a person they all referred to Deputy defense secretary Paul wolfowitz and his thesis on regime change and how to bring safety to the world and their take on Paul wolfowitz based on his writings is that as wolfowitz himself argues the mid East is a real problem for the United States, but it's a temporary problem one must handle the temporary problem in the Middle East, which is Iraq Pakistan Saudi Arabia, and of course the israeli-palestinian issue in order to release the American commitment to the real problem in the world and for Paul Wolfe. It's of course. He's an old Asia Diplomat for Paul wolfowitz. Of course, the real problem in the world is China China says Paul wolfowitz is the only possible other alternative source of competition for the United States in the long term. So the Chinese watch Iraq watch Afghanistan watch Korea with the sense that what American foreign policy. Now, this is their view not mine. The what American foreign policy is really getting ready to do is not only put missiles around China but work for regime change there as well. It's almost as if they may have a domino theory of their own about the US interest of dominoes in Reverse Domino's in reverse, and so you have to think in those terms to understand the Chinese response to to Korea sure on on on the surface. There's a there's a sense of wanting to diffuse a very difficult problem in the North Korean Peninsula tens of thousands of starving refugees over the last three years of moved into China caused real. The end and embarrassment on the other hand. There's a sense that if we help the United States too much many Chinese think will actually be beginning to dig our own grave and that were not about to do you're listening to midday on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Mike Edgerly in today for Gary. Eichten. (00:25:28) I'm going to Cunningham with the next All Things Considered surviving be company members remember leaving Duluth to fight in the Korean War. (00:25:36) We're all just young kids all charged up and you know didn't know what was coming next to know what to what to think. We just got on the train and headed south the main I think the bulk of us were between 17 and 20 21. So it's just basically a bunch of guys a special report on the Korean War on all things considered weekdays at 3:00 on Minnesota Public Radio checking the Twin Cities weather forecast for this afternoon partly cloudy the high and the low 80s tonight partly cloudy the low in the upper 60s to around 70 degrees for tomorrow warmer and Breezy the temperature In the lower 90s and then Saturday a little cooler the highs in the low 80s Sunday partly cloudy the highs near 80 a reminder that coming up at noon today. It's a special interview Gary eichten interview with Laura hillenbrand the author of Seabiscuit and American Legend. The book has been made into a movie which opens tomorrow that's coming up at noon today Gary eichten interview with the author of Seabiscuit and American Legend in this hour of. Midday. Our Guest is Roy grow College Carleton college professor of international relations were talking about to Korea and the US had a relationship with Korea coming this discussion comes on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the agreement that ended the conflict in in North Korea in Korea and a reminder that tomorrow at noon Minnesota public radio's American radio works presents the documentary Korea The Unfinished War that's tomorrow at noon on. Midday Professor grow. I'd like Ask the question about blackmail there has been some analysis that indicates that North Korea whatever its actual statements really is trying to Blackmail the United States and to paying some attention to it to not ignoring it on the world stage and maybe helping it get out of some of the straights that it finds itself in barely able to feed its people the problems with energy and so forth. What do you how do you see that? Is this an issue of of one nation saying to the u.s. Pay attention to me, please? Yeah, exactly. Right Mike blackmails a neat word for it. I'm a goofy political scientist so that we would probably say something like using the instruments of power that one has the available in order to do it, but you're exactly right. It's trying to First Force American attention and not just American government attention, but most American public attention and bottom line on all of this is not just the the the economic opening or not. Just the heavy oil. Industry not those kinds of things that came in the 1990s what they really want is that Assurance of safety and you can hear two words over and over again Secretary of State Powell will say well will enter into dialogue with the North Koreans the North Koreans don't want dialogue but they want and you'll hear the other word than is negotiation. That's what they really want. Negotiation implies that we the North Koreans are real folks were a real country. We are important to be dealt with and as you said that our issues that matter to us have to be taken into concern what the North Korean regime rational or irrational is trying to accomplish bottom line. Is that sense of negotiating its own safety with no American First Strike at anything that's there in terms of the Bush Doctrine of preemption in terms of the Bush Doctrine of regime change. No American First Strike. And the Bush Administration will not give that kid Bush Administration will not give that guarantee secretary Powell and some of the people within the state department such as Richard Armitage seem to indicate that yeah, that's something that we could go for an in terms of creating a stable International environment the folks in the defense department, especially Richard Perle who's now resigned and Paul wolfowitz said, no, that's no safety. That's no guarantee at all. The only real guarantee is a real change of regime and embedded in that a real movement towards participatory democracy in the North Korean Peninsula. That's the only thing that will guarantee American interests they argue if you'd like to join our conversation, we'd love to hear from you. You can reach us at 6'5 12276 thousand 6512276 thousand that's in the metro area or toll free anywhere. You can hear our voices 1-800 to for 22828. That's 802 for 22828 Anthony in Hibbing. You're on with Roy grow. (00:30:06) Well, good morning. It's a very interesting program. Thank you for taking my call. I would like to ask your guests if the North Koreans were to launch an invasion of the South Koreans. Does he feel if the South Korean military could defend itself and if they defended itself would it be another stalemate such it was in the early 50s, whereby we would just have much greater damage much more economic ruin for both the North and the South and I'll be right back to square one again. I don't think the mindset of the South Koreans in the North Koreans would go for another show. We say stalemate but an all-out win or lose. (00:30:41) Thank you much Anthony, that's the calculus and it's a it's a it's a really good one. Your question is is right on let me see if I can push my way through it in a couple of points and probably these won't be good answers to you. But here's the way I would would go at it. There's no question that the South Korean military and the South Korean military and the Forty to fifty thousand troops American troops that are there right now could not only defend the But probably Prevail move across the 38th parallel and probably move again up towards the Chinese border. No question of that. It seems to me in my mind, especially with American Tactical Air superiority that the real question is that given that given the possibility of a move in that direction would North Korea not launched missiles would it not use its artillery and the real problems of course would be the destruction of places like soul and all of the economic infrastructure that's there. Then when moves on to Japan where the missiles obviously can hit as well. And while the United States could take out maybe ten twenty fifty a hundred of the missile sites immediately. There might be 10 20 100 of the Thousand or so missile sites that would be able to get through to both Southern Korea and in Japan so get into a cost calculus there. There's no question that the United States would Prevail in Prevail and the South Koreans. Would Prevail well in a way different than in 1952 53, but the cost would be a Ants and the final point to the degree that the United States did move into North Korea. It changes all of the decision-making within China and a resurrection China all of the old problems out of the 1952-53 period when Douglas MacArthur was saying not only are we going to go to the North Korean border. We're going to go into Curry up that we're going to use our Atomic weapons if we have to and we're going to change the situation there as well. Then you've got a brand-new ballgame a real New World situation that is really froglet danger. And so it's not just North Korea that that the Bush Administration that the US would face in any sort of armed conflict. It's the potential of conflict with China ultimately the new leaders in China who didn't how one jiabao who came into to their positions in March of this year. They're young. They're rational their managers. They're not interested in World conflict. They're not interested in confrontation. Having said that Chinese politics just like American politics is divided between people with different views and an American movement. Up the Korean Peninsula would bring to the fore in China for the first time in maybe 30 years the militarists the conservatives in China the people who say we really need a big new defense budget. We really need to develop a whole range of missiles that will compete against the the missile defense system. It would change the way Chinese government works and that and that changes. I think the bottom line of American foreign policy and our safety as well. Let's go back to the phones Francis in Minneapolis. You're on with Roy (00:33:38) grow. Hi, thank you for accepting my call sure on the issue of military option with North Korea and mom thinking is why is the United States feeling all of a sudden that military conflict should be an option when they have Superior intellectual power. They have Superior crippled and they have All of the likeness from most of the people of the world, why didn't I use it is to their competitive advantage to bring necessary pressure on Korea instead of considering this whole issue to be a military option (00:34:18) good good point and and of course not only is your question really good one, but the embedded in the answer to it has to do with the nature of American politics. It's not the United States necessarily that is in I think as you said that is feeling this way or using this kind of a strategy American politics, of course is partisan and in within our partisan politics there has been in that contention between Democrats and Republicans, especially to radically different Visions about how to bring about American Safety the the vision that was embedded deeply within the Clinton administration had to do with Evolution and change regime change Shore social change. Sure. But an evolutionary process of social and political change that sort of wiped out the old borders and wiped out the old tents detentions and brought about a new set of ways of looking at the world always during the Clinton Administration there were others primarily the people like Paul wolfowitz and others who said no that is not a recipe for safety. That's a recipe for disaster that what we're doing is ignoring American problems at even encouraging even encouraging the very forces that are a threat to us that the Clinton Administration has sort of systematically ignored. These are two really good arguments and political scientist of course are torn between them. So when you say American policy, you really have to factor into American policy partisan Politics as well or ideological difference if you will, let's go to court in Minnetonka you're on with Roy (00:35:57) grow. Thank you for taking my call. Sure. I have a to Send a quick comment. It seems to me that there is an issue here of North Korean nuclear weapons proliferation Nicholas Kristoff who has I'm sure the professor knows spent a good deal of time in North Korea one of the few correspondence from a foreign paper to produce. So he's written frequently in his column in the New York Times that if North Korea begins rapidly producing plutonium based nuclear weapons that it's almost certain that they'll proliferate those abroad along the lines of their other weapons proliferation problems in an attempt to earn hard currency. And so I'd like him to respond to that question Nicholas kristof's opinion that regard. My second question is related to China and I had the pleasure of listening to Professor be interviewed by Gary eichten a couple of months ago and he said that folks in the states if they wanted to know if China was really changing that they should focus on the woman Health Minister and China who had refused. Along with her fellow cadres and had broken open the cover up related to SARS particularly the military hospitals in Beijing and I remember us. I've followed the news coverage since he said we should watch to see what happened to her. And I've not I forgot her name, but I recollect that there was a shake-up and that's some people were moved out of the health Ministry and I was wondering if you could update us on what happened with her and the final comment I have is William safire two years ago relating to something that the professor alluded to previously that the Chinese are really worried about u.s. Competition with China and having a long-range goal of containing China steffler said in the column that he felt that what was occurring with the war on terror was being used as a pretext by the Bush Administration to ring China with troops to put troops back in the Philippines to have troops on me southwestern border of China and Afghanistan and in the trans caucuses region, and I wanted to get the professor's reaction. That particular Theory I know Sapphire knows a lot of those conservative intellectuals of the Pentagon Court out the response of fear. (00:38:08) Thanks for your call Court three really good questions. And and thanks for listening over we're definitely has to over the last weeks and months as well. I won't take them quite in the in the order you gave them the China case the woman's name was whooee and she had been the minister of foreign trade and she was the one who took the TV cameras into the hospitals and in effect face down some of the conservatives in China with films of the actual SARS patients and saying if you don't let the who into China I'm going to give these to CNN did not only alive should not only well she's thriving and she has become one of the good guys one of the strong guys in Chinese politics and you're right. She's an indicator of which way politics is going and it's going in terms of Reform and liberal opening at an even more rapid Pace than it was two or three years ago. Secondly, you're also write down Nick Kristof. I think Nick is on a And you're right. I do know and we've known him for for an awful long time and we were in China when he was was there in the late 80s the early 90s and we're actually with him the night that that he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in in in for his reporting of Cannon man in in Beijing. He's on a roll right now and the things that he's talking about I think in North Korea are right on as well his his sense of the danger of proliferation of movement of both the missile technology in the nuclear technology. It not only will happen. It has happened. And of course, we remember the interception of this ship that was headed to her towards Yaman a number of months ago that had missile technology and it and you and Nick are both right and thinking that's one of the best ways that the North Korean regime has of generating hard currency the real question about it has to do then with well, how do you contain it? How do you bring it about and I think As you're indicating the need there is hard currency the question then becomes if there are other sources of hard currency say good industry making real profit and trading with the rest of the world with that preempt the need for the sort of kinds of goofy hard currency that you're talking about. There are a lot of folks who say yeah that you don't have to cordon off Korea in order to bring about the the ends that they were talking about. You don't have to threaten bombing them. You don't have to threaten regime change. You can actually bring about their regime change by simply sort of leaning back and saying, okay, let's allow the natural economic functions to to occur Bill Sapphire. Yeah Bill sapphire in those articles of a couple of years ago. He was doing a sort of his own pre-emptive nuclear strike against the writings of Paul wolfowitz who is about to become assistant secretary deputy secretary for Defence Richard Perle and some of the others Sapphire. Come along with many other very prominent conservatives disagree disagree vehemently with the wolfowitz thesis. They argued that the struggle for democracy while good is not something that ought to be the basis of American foreign policy that foreign policy is designed primarily to protect you from real physical threat and the going after targets like changing democracies or changing leaders gets away from the primary goal of what foreign policy should be. So people like Bill Sapphire have been fighting this very very difficult battle within the conservative movement about the nature of American foreign policy and Court. You're just right to note that that has been going on for a good number of years great questions. If we'd like to join your join our conversation and maybe pose your own questions to Professor Roy grow. You can reach us at 6'5 12276 thousand 6512276 thousand that's in the Twin Cities. Is or toll-free anywhere, you hear our voices 1-800 to for to 28288 hundred 200 to 220. Let's go to George at Mille Lacs. You're on with Roy grow. (00:42:13) Thank you. Mr. Grow our for taking my call. I have a question sometimes in their Affairs of Nations the stated goals of foreign policy and the real hidden goals are at variation. For example, you could say you want peace, but that power would actually be a more satisfying goal in terms of geopolitics what interests of the United States are served by not making peace with North Korea by fomenting the crisis and building it up so that more troops can be moved in and and other kinds of things. I mean, can you talk to that place? Because I've heard that in South Korea. There is a younger generation that wants to have re-approach met with North Korea, but they feel United States stands in the way and prevents this from happening that doesn't serve the United States interest to actually make peace with with North and South You can you talk about that place that if my answer off the air (00:43:05) towards that's a really insightful question. And as I know, you know, the same argument is being made about Iran not a rock, but I ran that that American confrontational tactics towards Iran are getting in the way of that upsurge of young people of new voices who don't want necessarily a religious religious regime and to the degree that the Bush Administration is confrontational towards both North Korea and Iran it short circuiting that natural process of evolution. Now if I could argue that I'm not sure I'll do this very well, but but but let me let me try if I could argue the wolfowitz thesis the wolfowitz thesis is to the degree that all of us would agree on on this wolfowitz says that the primary guarantor of peace is a world of democracies the democracies do not go to war with one another that if we really want to guarantee a A place that's safe for American interests safer Americans that what we need is the the almost the militant spread Teddy Roosevelt style. The militant spread of democracy is in place after place after place. Now, most of the people that were looking at in the currant Bush Administration where of course also involved in foreign policy during the Reagan Administration and in the bush one Administration to some degree and their proudest accomplishment in their view is that they brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union that they brought about the beginning of a democratic upsurge in that part of the world in Francis. Fukuyama's famous words. It was the of course the the end of History the debate was over no longer was there debate between Marxism and capitalism now the wolfowitz folks and they're commonly called the Neo cons in in foreign policy. If I could argue their position it is we only went halfway. We got the Soviet Union, but we didn't get the rest of it. Therefore the world is still very very Dangerous and we've got two in a militant fashion bring democracy into the Middle East and that as it spreads across the Middle East will solve the arab-israeli problem and we got to bring it in a militant way into Asia as well. And that that actually will get us to the point that we thought we were at at the end of the 1980s with the fall of the Soviet Union a world really truly safe for not just America, but Americans with with the interest the kinds of interest that they have now, I'm not sure I did Justice to the wolfowitz thesis but that's that's sort of the way in three or four sentences the way it would be argued. I think the predicate to the argument the bottom end of the argument has to do with the fact that that not only do you have to begin to change a regime but to make the wolfowitz thesis work you actually have to see the rise of democratic institutions and democratic values in these areas of the world as I think the struggling Iraq right now is indicating. Just ain't as easy as it seemed on paper. And in the meantime, we have a presidential election. In the meantime. We have a presidential election. I worry about the presidential election that the debate over foreign policy which ought to be right at the center of it as it has been several times in American history won't be as nuanced or as insightful as your audience. Mike is making it right now. This program has a way of an audience, but I worry that that other parts of the American public will be debating it in terms of 16 words in the State of the Union Address or something like that missing really truly missing the full Forest of the argument. That's that that's out there and the full Forest of the argument the wolfowitz thesis of regime change versus the gradual approach to change. It's a very complex but really important argument that like the Korean War of 1950 could set the stage as that argument is settled for the next two or three decades of the way this country and our citizens are involved in the rest of the world. And the other side of this is how willing would the Bush Administration be to describe its plans in the coming term as it defends itself against the other parties because to do so might be to open itself to even greater attacks. It might be it's a complex argument. Now In fairness to the Bush Administration, they have not been secret about it. Richard Perle has written article after article on it wolfowitz has made statement after statement audit including famously his statement in Vanity Fair of a couple of months ago that the war in Iraq was not about weapons of mass destruction after all it was really about the very things that were that were talking about. I think the problem is that it's such a complex argument that it's hard to capture it in a few headlines or a few sound bites and it's hard for the American public with all of the things that Americans are doing right now to sit down and devote the time to thinking through all of the nuances not that Americans aren't bright or Or want to be involved it just takes time and they're not always except for programs like this. They're not always getting the full complexity of that debate that you're talking about. Let's go back to the phone's. Marry Louis in Northfield. You're on with Roy grow. (00:48:27) Hi Roy. This is kind of a backtrack. But you were talking earlier about the danger of having one lone superpower and that danger being there getting over (00:48:39) extended. The audience should realize that marry Louis in Northfield is somehow related to me. (00:48:45) This is my wife (00:48:47) frequently calls this show to tell me what I thought the answering (00:48:51) instead. No, but I just one thing I've heard you say so often. In fact, I think you talked about it on one of the last times you were on. Midday. Is that a second danger of having a lone superpower? Is that other countries seek a balance and that it often leads other? Trees into alliances to counter that superpower and and you hadn't made that point, but I know that's something I've heard you say is very (00:49:23) important Mary. Let's hear that. Thanks. Thanks for calling. Thanks for reminding me. Yeah, she's right. One of the oldest theories in international relations, of course comes not out of the last hundred years, but are the last 2,500 years it comes out of historians like to sit at ease who is writing about the Peloponnesian Wars the great democracy Athens meeting the the the tiny years militant Spartan city state. And of course, the acidity is one of the city's bottom lines and all of this is that as the Democratic and economically powerful Athens got stronger and stronger and started moving across the world of ancient Greece and began to think that it's interests were the same as the interest of all of the other little city-states in ancient Greece it began. And to ask and then demand this these other city-states to go along with its agenda. And as it made those demands even the friends of Athens began to see that as good as Athens was it did not necessarily have their own interests at heart and as a result of that they began to move away from Athens and a new balance a new balance was created around Sparta some of the league some of the other members that the grouped around it. And as we know of course Athens as it went it alone overextended we get from thucydides the wonderful word hubris thinking the thought that you can do everything in the world that you think you can that sense of overextension, of course led to victory at first then stalemate and of course, ultimately the defeat of Athens and the thing that I think political scientists worry about most right now is that sure our victories at the moment had been spectacular they've been obvious. We've done them almost by herself. But what we're seeing is a result is a massive shift even amongst our traditional friends away from the United States as these friends say yeah, the values are but but our interests are not being protected the things that we value are not being listened to by the United States and what's coming about and I think we can watch it. We're seeing it occur. All this year is a new balance where even our friends might take opposition views in order just to protect the things that they see as important in this world. It's a dangerous moment for the United States for that read for that for that for that reason and we saw it even in the period from Afghanistan to Iraq because the US had support in Afghanistan that did not appear with Iraq. It did not appear with Iraq and increasingly as we move towards Iraq toward the Iraqi war against the wishes of our allies the promises of our allies to Aid in Afghanistan. Those have not been carried through as well. Allies are saying no not only do we not want to support you in Iraq. We won't support you in your other interests. It's really important that you take our needs into account as well. The result is the more the United States prevails counter-intuitively the lonelier we get let's go back to the phones Matt in Sioux Falls. You're on with Roy (00:52:34) grow. Thank you. Good morning. I think this is probably a good time. Since you sort of talked about are one of our allies was wondering your thoughts on the Blair Administration. And now that there's a significantly new amount of political Capital built built up there how where will will use that and what his thoughts on North Korea are and how they might try to shape our policy somewhere between the wolf of its verses the state department views, (00:53:02) huh? Matt. Tony Blair is such a wonderful politician and he's stumbling so badly on this issue and all of the indications. Are he supported American foreign policy because he truly believes he truly believes in in the themes that the Bush Administration is talking about. He truly believes in the process of democratization, and he also truly believes the Great Britain has to carve out an independent course away from the European continent. He's stumbling badly the BBC problems over the last couple of days the The death of the British scientist the sexy Dusty A all of those things the sensor further there was really real intelligence to demonstrate the arguments that he was making in front of parliament. It's become a very very ebullient dialogue and and some people are going so far as to say that Tony Blair might not survive the fall. He's a better politician that he probably will but even of course, it's own party is split and his supporters in the other party the conservatives who were supporting him are now beginning to come out as well a vote of confidence is not Beyond question and that of course if he were to lose something like a vote of confidence prime minister Blair, it would it would make it all the more difficult in the future for u.s. To find allies and it's President Bush by himself. And that's why we're at this really sober moment in American foreign policy. We're at the end of our resources. It isn't quite working out the way that the Folks thought were going it alone. Our brigades are all committed. The next month's could be as faithful for American foreign policy as the Korean war was 50 years ago. We have just about a minute left Professor girl. Could you give our give us our listeners in me some idea of what we should be looking for? What what sort of the but where should we look as we watch events in the coming months. The events are interconnected. It's not just a rock by itself. It's not just Korea by itself and it's not just Africa or Liberia by itself. These are crises that are spilling over into one another Africa. All of central Africa is is in the most immense turmoil that you can that you can imagine and it's a place of real richness. The Middle East obviously is not settled to end is going into difficult times. Korea is a linchpin watch their the words discussion versus negotiation. If we negotiate it may be on the edge of being settled and that may play. From the other areas that I just mentioned, but again, it's a difficult time and it's eerily reminiscent of the 1950's that status on the course for the 1960s Professor grow. Thanks for joining. It's good to be here. Mike Roy grow Carleton college professor of international relations. Thanks for joining us. Listening is great. But what (00:55:54) Americans really love to do is talk and thanks to Talk of the Nation. You can do both. I'm Neal Conan join me for insightful conversation with the day's news makers the sharpest analysts and your friends your neighbors your family and your coworkers. It's Talk of the Nation from NPR news. (00:56:11) And that's today at 1 p.m. Here on Minnesota Public Radio and in just a further reminder that tomorrow at noon Minnesota public radio's American radio works will present the documentary Korea The Unfinished War that's tomorrow at noon on. Midday Twin Cities weather for this afternoon partly cloudy the high in the low 80s for tomorrow warm Breezy the highs reaching the low 90s Friday nighta chance of thunderstorms 40% chance and for Saturday and Sunday, it looks like it'll be only a partly cloudy but the highs both days around 80 degrees. You're listening to Minnesota Public Radio.