FRIDAY

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Ms. Soderberg's bio
• International Crisis Group
• About The Superpower Myth

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Nancy Soderberg is a former deputy assistant to President Clinton for national security affairs, and a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She is now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations whose recent book is 'The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might.' She joins us tonight from Jacksonville, Florida. Ambassador Soderberg, nice to have you on the program.

Nancy Soderberg: My pleasure.

Tavis: So it's now been confirmed as of days ago that what we thought happened in North Korea did, in fact, happen. What's your read on this?

Soderberg: Well, I think this is one more nuclear hissy fit by the North Koreans trying to get themselves some attention and some carrots for their program. They've been blackmailing the international community for decades now, and they'll keep doing it until there's some kind of deal here.

Tavis: Let me ask you, as I read the story - help me understand this better - well, let me ask it without even putting my own (laugh) misunderstanding on it. Was it as bad, or not as bad, as we thought it was?

Soderberg: Well, I think that the North Korean decision to detonate a nuclear weapon was a wake up call that this crisis needs some attention. Their weapons are crude, their missiles are crude. Best case scenario, if everything went perfectly, though, they could possibly hit Alaska or Hawaii with their weapons. So it's a very serious issue. It's run by a - I don't know if he's insane or crazy, but someone who's very volatile, clearly.

And this has been festering for six years with no meaningful negotiations. The Security Council, however, did react very strongly and put very tough sanctions on, which the Bush administration should get credit for. That was a very difficult resolution to get China and Russia on board. So it is not over, and the missiles and the nuclear weapons continue to be manufactured by North Korea. So we're no safer today than we were before that resolution was passed over the weekend.

Tavis: You said a moment ago, and I get the point, somewhat jokingly that you don't know if he is insane or crazy. I suspect, though, seriously, there are folk watching this in parts of the world who perhaps think that we, the U.S., that our White House, that our president is insane and crazy. After all, we have more of these weapons than anybody else in the world.

And yet we somehow think we still have the right to decide and determine who gets it and who doesn't get it. Is that insane or crazy? We can blow the world up 100 million times?

Soderberg: Well, and the Venezuelan president thinks President Bush is the devil. (Laugh) So there's a lot of words flying around here. No, we have been a responsible member of the nuclear club, and we have committed to the non-proliferation treaty, which eventually commits us to slowly get rid of all these weapons. The U.S. is not the problem here.

It's the rogue states that are seeking nuclear weapons, and potentially with respect to North Korea, could easily give them to terrorists. So this is a major problem. What the Bush administration stands at fault for is mostly because of ideology, refusing to negotiate an acceptable deal with North Korea. There's been a deal on the table with North Korea for six years.

And by really the hard liners in the administration have just refused to get a deal. If you talk to the administration people who were with them for the last five years, any time they're getting, inching towards a deal, there'd be someone who would pull back here. Because I think partly because they didn't wanna look like they were Bill Clinton negotiating with North Korea.

But the fact is you have to negotiate with your enemies. Talking to our enemies is not appeasement. And there's a whole structure called the six-party talks set up. We need to use that and get a deal here.

Tavis: I wanna come back to the six-party talks in just a moment, but to your point now about this administration, who they will and will not talk to, who they will and will not dialogue and negotiate with. Secretary Rice is in the region this week. She's in Asia, that is to say. From your perspective, from your point of view, what ought she be saying on behalf of this administration? What ought they be doing? You intimated earlier that this issue deserves attention. What kind of attention does this issue deserve right now, as we speak?

Soderberg: Well, I think first of all, the first step is to make sure that China abides by the resolution. They've been trying to walk it back ever since it was negotiated by saying well, we might still trade. South Korea, as well. Once the Security Council acts with this tough a resolution, they need to enforce it. But enforcing a resolution against North Korea does not stop their nuclear weapon program.

It needs to be coupled with energetic talks led by the United States to try and finally put the nuclear genie of North Korea back in the bottle. This resolution is an important step in the right direction, but it needs to be coupled with diplomacy, something this administration is not particularly adept at. So they need to build on the progress, and take it to the next step.

Tavis: To your latter point now, let me ask you in a very forthright and direct way a question about public policy that is clearly covered, shrouded in politics, but has to do with this increasingly disturbing conversation, where I'm concerned, at least, that we have to be a party to, or subject to, as American citizens, comparing what Clinton did or did not do to what Bush is or is not doing.

How do you read this rewriting of history, or certainly this spin, pick a word. But every day I pick up anything that I'm reading, there's this back and forth on this particular issue and others. But on this, that's in part what got Chris Wallace in trouble at the Fox News Channel. But what do you make of this? Is it just me, or am I seeing a lot more of this now? This Clinton V. Bush, if you will.

Soderberg: Well, don't forget we're in an election year. So there's going to be accusations flying back and forth. But I think there's been a fundamental skewing of history by those who are opponents of Bill Clinton and his Presidency. The fact is, Bill Clinton stopped the nuclear program of North Korea. There were no nuclear weapons produced during his presidency.

There were talks on missiles, to try and get that program put in place, and the world is a lot safer place with that deal. Now, the North Koreans cheated on that deal, started another secret program in the latter years of the Clinton administration. And so now has two nuclear weapon programs. Has pulled out the inspectors, has withdrawn from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and is merrily churning out nuclear weapons, and the missiles to deliver them.

So we're a lot less safe now. And it's not pleasant to negotiate with evil regimes, whatever you wanna call them, but sometimes, it's a fact of life. Clinton was willing to take that fact of life and pull off a very historic deal, and we need to do that again. I think that the Bush administration is less and less apoplectic about doing something that Clinton might have done, and is beginning to look at the reality of the options in the world.

And they often involve dealing with the United Nations, dealing with our partners. They've evolved. The second term understands that you have to have diplomacy. We've exhausted our military, so there are no military options left in many of these crises. So with Iran, they're negotiating. They're trying to work with the U.N., not just on North Korea; but in Lebanon, it was key to the recent crisis there.

All through Africa and Sudan and the Congo, they're working with them. And they've even let some issues go to the dreaded International Criminal Court. The ICC. So they're shifting - reality has a way of descending on them to force them to abandon what I've called the superpower myth that we can go it on our own. And we have to deal with our allies. Not always. We have to go it alone on some cases. But that needs to always be a last resort, not first.

Tavis: Let me ask you whether or not, while I absolutely believe in diplomacy, and I hope that most of us as Americans still do, never mind the position of the White House, let me ask you whether or not you think it's too late in some of these hot spots around the world for that kind of strategy. And if not too late, you're the expert here, explain to me why it is that I shouldn't believe that we have lost leverage walking to the table at this point having bypassed the opportunity to engage in that diplomacy the first time around, as it were?

Soderberg: Well, it makes it a lot harder when you waste time on other things, and don't do diplomacy right. In Iran, for instance, it's a lot harder now, because you have a hard line president in office. Anti-Americanism has spiked up to unprecedented levels. The world doesn't trust us anymore. So it's very hard to get the rest of the world to follow us. Persuade them that we're acting in their interests, as well as ours.

That said, I'm an optimist, though. They, we are the only super power, and when America gets it right, people understand it, and they will follow us. So, once we get on the right path, the world, even though they're a little huffier and grumpier about it, will come and follow us. And that's what we need to do, not just in Iran, Iraq, North Korea, but on the whole range of challenges that are before us in this twenty-first century.

Tavis: Let me offer this, Ambassador Soderberg, as an exit question. I wanna come back to something that we discussed earlier, and while we could have an entire show about this, it's perhaps unfair to ask you this at the end of our conversation, but I'm fascinated by this. To your point that when America leads, the rest of the world follows, juxtaposed against your point that the world does not trust us anymore, wouldn't it make more sense if we, in a significant way, and in a significant way with the quickness, that is to say to do it now, rather than to put it off into the future, started to dramatically increase the nuclear capacity that we have, everybody - nobody argues this one point.

We have more than what we need to blow the world up many times over. So why do we have it? If we courageously and with conviction and with commitment said we're going to cut our arsenal dramatically right now, doesn't that then start to say to the world community America is serious about this. They've stepped up courageously, and maybe we should follow their lead. Wouldn't that - I'm just a lowly talk show host, but wouldn't that strategy, like, make some sense?

Soderberg: Well, I think the thing that would make some sense is to try and have the U.S. leadership put its full weight behind everyone reducing their nuclear arsenals. I don't think an administration is going to do it unilaterally, particularly this administration that's thinking about creating new types of nuclear weapons, which we clearly do not need.

Tavis: But that's what leadership is.

Soderberg: It is. And what we need to do is begin to say we're prepared to do it and get the rest of the world to follow us. Most important, actually, in my view, is to try and re-strengthen the rules that we've been undermining. All the alphabet soup of protections against nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, which have been weakened. We need tough rules of the road, and we need America, who's gonna lead in the effort to prove to the world that we do not need these weapons anymore, and begin to take that leadership.

We're going in the wrong direction right now. This administration wants to develop new kinds of nuclear weapons, and that makes us more dangerous. Makes the world more dangerous if we go down that path, clearly.

Tavis: Ambassador Nancy Soderberg, it's always nice to have you on. Thanks for your insight, I appreciate it.

Soderberg: My pleasure.

Tavis: UP next on this program, comedian, nothing funny about this, but we'll get a laugh on for a moment here with comedian Larry Miller. Stay with us.