Podcast: You Win Some, You Luge Some

TRANSCRIPT: You Win Some, You Luge Some

Su Mi Terry:

I don't think anyone can credibly know what Kim Jong-un will or will not do, know his intention or know his resolve.

Ian Bremmer:

Hi, I'm Ian Bremmer and welcome to the GZERO World Podcast. I'm host of the Weekly Show, "GZERO World" on Facebook Watch. In this podcast, we share extended versions of the big interviews from that show. This week I sit down with Sue Mi Terry, senior fellow and Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Prior to CSIS, she handled all things Korea for the CIA, the National Intelligence Council, and the National Security Council under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. As the Olympics in Korea kick off, she's the exact right person to talk to. Let's get to it.

Announcer:

The GZERO World is brought to you by our founding sponsor, First Republic. First Republic, a private bank and wealth management company, understands the value of surface, safety and stability in today's uncertain world. Visit firstrepublic.com to learn more.

Ian Bremmer:

I'm glad to welcome to Eurasia Group headquarters here in New York City Sue Mi Terry. She is senior fellow and Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. Before that, she ran all things Korea for the National Intelligence Council, the NSC and the CIA under Bush and Obama administrations. In other words, if you are worried about things Korea and with the Olympics kicking off tonight, yes, on the peninsula we are, there's no one better to talk to than Sue Mi Terry. Sue, delighted that you're here. Welcome to the GZERO.

Su Mi Terry:

Thank you for having me on.

Ian Bremmer:

We're about to have a few weeks of the South and the North coming together. They got a women's joint ice hockey team. They're going to lose but lose in glory. It's kind of like a war. We all lose together. What do you think comes out of the next few weeks?

Su Mi Terry:

It's a lot of a happy feeling, although you don't want the hockey team to lose too badly. You've already seen domestic backlash against the Moon administration, not only coming from the conservatives, but by the younger generation of the Koreans who are unhappy about the joint hockey team. They're even unhappy about North Korea and South Korea marching together under one unified... some flag because the younger generation is saying, what is this country? Why can't we have our own flag? And why should North Koreans be part of this hockey team?

Ian Bremmer:

So young people in South Korea aren't behind the opening up to working together at the Olympics? I mean, you'd think that they'd be more excited. Not at all.

Su Mi Terry:

They're okay with this thaw, but, or North Koreans coming to the Olympics, but they're unhappy about why does North Koreans have to mess up our hockey team? Why can we not play under our own flag? Because they have no affiliation or affection towards North Korea. It's not like my grandparents' generation who came from... my grandparents came from North Korea. So there's affection towards North Korea. I think younger generation does not have any of that. They have no memory of that. They were born in Kangnam after war, after... they don't even know poverty. They were born in a rich country.

Ian Bremmer:

But they love the joint selfies with the gymnasts.

Su Mi Terry:

That's true.

Ian Bremmer:

In the Summer Olympics.

Su Mi Terry:

That's true.

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, isn't this true?

Su Mi Terry:

That's true.

Ian Bremmer:

And the media's going to force this...

Su Mi Terry:

No

Ian Bremmer:

... to be wonderful, aren't they?

Su Mi Terry:

No, no, it's true. Part of North Korea's calculation here is not only image makeover, but also to sort of, this is going to be used as an insurance against provocations later down the road.

Ian Bremmer:

They're sending political officials as well. Do you think we could come out of this with a very different mood? Is it possible?

Su Mi Terry:

No.

Ian Bremmer:

Zero.

Su Mi Terry:

No, I wouldn't say zero. There's a small window possibility. But North Korea, South Korea improving their relationship does not still solve the problem. Because North Korea, even in the New Year's address, when he says, okay, we're going to send the delegation to the Olympics, but by the way, we're still going to mass produce our weapons.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Su Mi Terry:

So unless Washington and Pyongyang improves, it's not going to make big progress. During the sunshine years, 10 years where South Korea gave North Korea some 8 billion dollars, did it change North Korea? Did it change North Korea into some other normal state? Did it change North Korea to give up nuclear and missile program? It didn't. So I think the progress has to be really made between Washington and Pyongyang for there to be progress on the nuclear and missile front.

Ian Bremmer:

For a long time, it wasn't just nuclear proliferation that worried people. It was also what happens when the regime falls apart.

Su Mi Terry:

Yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

We don't talk about that very much anymore in part because Kim Jong-un himself has consolidated power. But in part because we don't seem to think it's feasible. Maybe it's because our own liberal democracies seem weaker than they used to be. Maybe China's so strong. But what do you think about the potential for regime implosion?

Su Mi Terry:

You look at pillars of stability, like what made the regime stable all this time and there are couple of pillars, right? There's elite support, which is the most important part. If as long as elites support the regime, it continues. So even the famine years, millions of people die. It doesn't matter as long as elites support you. But elites are not united right now against the Kim Jong-un regime, because of the crazy fear tactics, like, if you fall asleep, you're dead. You might be sort of coward and you're not speaking up. But when you talk to some other senior defectors that have defected like Thae Yong Ho, Ri Jong Ho, some North Koreans that came out, elites are not unified under Kim Jong-un. They don't have any love laws. I mean, they actually respected Kim Il-sung, the founding father of North Korea. There was less so under Kim Jong-il, but Kim Jong-un, this 30 some year old guy, Kim Jong-un's stability is still, I think, fragile. And I don't think we don't think enough about that, but that's what I believe.

Ian Bremmer:

If we do see the end, the sudden end of the world's only totalitarian regime with nuclear weapons and an incredible poverty, what are the implications of that?

Su Mi Terry:

Well, there are, in the beginning, I think there is going to be some serious challenges for the international community, because there's going to be a major humanitarian disaster. There's going to be loose nukes. How do we secure those? All those weapons that are in North Korea right now? What about the army? It's 1.2 million men army that's running around with potentially soldiers with guns and arms. What are we going to do about that? So there's a lot of challenges, but over the long term, these are Korean people.

Su Mi Terry:

I mean, Koreans have done some amazing things. And look at South Korea-- from one of the poorest countries in the world to 12th largest economy today. This happened just a matter of decades. I do believe that unified Korea will emerge in some time, maybe a couple, it takes a couple of decades, but it will come out stronger. At the end of the day, because you get rid of North Korea, you don't have this perpetual crisis on the Korean Peninsula.

Ian Bremmer:

How much should we really be worried? I know that you are, the potential for military confrontation. What is it that regime implosion, nuclear proliferation, cyber attacks. If you want to rank the threats around North Korea, what's number one?

Su Mi Terry:

The Trump administration deciding to conduct a limited military strike in North Korea, and that conflict escalating into war, will be my number one concern.

Ian Bremmer:

That's your biggest one. You actually think that there are people in the Trump administration that are serious about a preemptive strike against-

Su Mi Terry:

Absolutely. I think there are people who are more accurately thinking about preventive military strike against North Korea. Because some folks have decided that somehow North Korea is different, different from China, Russia, that North Korea is not a status quo power, that we cannot live with nuclear North Korea, because North Korea has not only regime survival as the intent in terms of trying to complete the nuclear program, but he had some sort of offensive design of by trying to complete the nuclear program. In other words, by having the capability to attack mainland United States, with intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-tipped ICBM, he's going to be able to decouple US-South Korea alliance, kick the US forces off the Korean peninsula, perhaps achieve unification on its own terms. And then of course, there's concern of nuclear proliferation.

Ian Bremmer:

So, the military option, as I understand it, the punch in the...

Su Mi Terry:

Yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

...face scenario is, you degrade significantly some of their military capabilities. It's not a decapitation strike. And the presumption is, if they were to try to hit the United States in return...

Su Mi Terry:

Yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

...they know that it's over for them. So the deterrence still holds.

Su Mi Terry:

Right.

Ian Bremmer:

Is that... Give some detail around that. To the extent that you really understand the military thinking.

Su Mi Terry:

I don't think anyone can credibly know what Kim Jong-un will or would not do, know his intention or know his resolve. So from his perspective, he might have to retaliate more significantly because domestically, he cannot look or appear to look weak in front of his elites, domestic standing wise, because it's all about him looking tough and standing up against United States. Standing up against Mr. Chung.

Ian Bremmer:

What do we think we know about Kim Jong-un?

Su Mi Terry:

Well, we know that he's ruthless. We know that he's brutal. I mean, just look at how he executed his uncle. The second most powerful man in North Korea, Jang Song-thaek, year after he came in, publicly embarrassed and humiliated Jang Song-thaek and all these people by dragging him out, put him in a public stadium and killed him with an anti-aircraft gun.

Ian Bremmer:

Was Kim Jong-un there?

Su Mi Terry:

We believe so. And hundreds of Jang's associates and their family members were also executed. So no question. Kim Jong-un is one of the most brutal, ruthless men in the world.

Ian Bremmer:

Rational, from your perspective?

Su Mi Terry:

I do think he's rational in that I don't think he's suicidal. His father was not suicidal either. I don't think he's ideological. So North Korea is not like terrorist groups because they're willing to die for their cause and then you can't do anything about that. But Kim Jong-un, I think is more like a normal dictator in that he wants to live a long time and die peacefully in his own bed. So in that sense, he's rational.

Ian Bremmer:

Which certainly explains why he would want to expand his nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. Yes. But it also perhaps provides at least some justification for why many American officials might believe that he wouldn't do anything when push came to shove, to risk the end of his regime.

Su Mi Terry:

In terms of rational thinking. There's a Korean nationalistic thing and he needs to look tough. So he cannot just sort of sit back and get punched and not do anything. So it is still rational once you get punched to sort of fight back. And I think because he has to, he stick his whole legitimacy based on completing the nuclear program, being a tough leader who can stand up to the United States, I don't think he can necessarily look weak and survive.

Ian Bremmer:

So let's imagine this has happened. We have a full ICBM test. They've displayed that they can hit the United States. We are thinking about what we want to do. The rhetoric is obviously very fiery. How do you think the South Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese respond in that instance?

Su Mi Terry:

I think what the whole region would want is very robust containment and deterrence policy and sanctions. I think more people will be pressing for sanctions. I don't think there's going to be a single power, not China, not Russia, not South Korea, not even Japan, that's going to advocate any kind of kinetic option.

Ian Bremmer:

Now when you say advocating for more sanctions, the Chinese have already stepped up sanctions pretty significantly. What are you saying? They would completely cut off the economic lifeline? All energy is suspended?

Su Mi Terry:

I'm usually very suspicious that China is going to go there completely. But I think another, not another... I think atmospheric nuclear test might get China there.

Ian Bremmer:

What makes you believe that?

Su Mi Terry:

China always said no war, no instability and no nukes and in that order. So we know that China wants [to] still preserve status quo. Wants the buffer and all of this. But if China truly believes now war is imminent, that Trump could go there?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah,

Su Mi Terry:

I think China might act.

Ian Bremmer:

Near term. Who has a plan? Do the Chinese have a plan? Do the South Koreans have a plan? Do the Americans have a plan for what happens if there's regime change? Are they talking to each other about it?

Su Mi Terry:

I think there is. Or internal planning to some degree. I think US is trying to talk to China. This is a very difficult conversation to have with China. Chinese have been historically concerned that even having a conversation that would get leaked to North Korea and that would upset North Koreans. But it's a conversation that's absolutely critical. It's needed because it could happen whether we want want it or not. Regime instability, regime collapse, and because of potential challenges to the international community, like securing nuclear weapons, should be a concern to China as to the United States. So conversation really desperately needs to happen.

Ian Bremmer:

And I mean, if you leave aside the potential for military strikes, if Trump decides not to do that, take it off the table.

Su Mi Terry:

Yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

Even if he still threatens it, it's not going to happen.

Su Mi Terry:

Yeah.

Ian Bremmer:

Has Trump policy towards North Korea been fine?

Su Mi Terry:

Minus the rhetoric?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah?

Su Mi Terry:

Yes, yes. Broadly speaking, I think the Trump administration's policy of maximum pressure, is the right one in terms of pressing through sanctions, trying to get China to do more on North Korea, even if we have to press China by going after secondary boycott and sanctions and so on. I think that's the right approach, minus the rhetoric. Because the rhetoric of rocket men on a suicide mission or totally destroying North Korea, that's unhelpful. Kim Jong-un, only thing he has to do is continually press that totally destroy North Korea over and over, and it's not helpful. It doesn't achieve anything.

Ian Bremmer:

So the last question then, what's the single worst thing that Trump could tweet?

Su Mi Terry:

I think it has to do with insulting Kim Jong-un in saying Kim Jong-un does not have legitimacy at home because his mother was not a real wife of Kim Jong-il. That his mother was only a mistress and that he doesn't have legitimacy as a real leader, and that's why he killed Kim Jong-nam, his half brother, because he was concerned about legitimacy issue.

Ian Bremmer:

Wow. Okay.

Su Mi Terry:

I'm not saying Mr. Trump should do that.

Ian Bremmer:

I'm going to make sure that Trump doesn't hear about that.

Su Mi Terry:

Okay. Cut that out.

Ian Bremmer:

That's between us.

Su Mi Terry:

Okay.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay. Sue Mi Terry, thank you so much. Wonderful to have you on the GZERO.

Su Mi Terry:

Thank you for having me on.

Announcer:

The GZERO World is brought to you by our founding sponsor, First Republic. First Republic, a private bank and wealth management company understands the value of surface, safety and stability in today's uncertain world. Visit firstrepublic.com to learn more.