Transcript of Episode 7, April 2003 edition
The following interviews may contain more information than the recorded RealPlayer versions, which were condensed for length and listenability.
-
Captain Lee Rosenberg, head of UC Berkeley's ROTC program
-
International student panel: Nicolas Bossut (France), Diana Fleming, (Ireland), and Thomas Mueller-Spaeth (Germany)
-
T.J. Pempel, Director of the East Asian Studies Institute
Introduction
Chancellor Robert M. Berdahl: Welcome to the April edition of "Bear in Mind." We're coming to you from our TV Studio in Dwinelle and, as we have for the past couple of programs, we are joined by a live in-studio audience.
On this program, we'll talk to Captain Lee Rosenberg, commanding officer of Naval ROTC at UC Berkeley. We'll hear about the military affairs program and discover what the ROTC students are learning.
As America engages in continued war with Iraq, being an American on our campus is one thing, but international students have different concerns. Today we'll talk to 3 international graduate students about how their experience is being shaped by current events.
In March, UC Berkeley hosted an international meeting to discuss growing tensions on the Korean peninsula. East Asian Studies professor T.J. Pempel, who was instrumental in making the meeting happen here on campus, will be with us to give an insider's perspective on the event.
After each interview we'll open the floor to questions from the audience and at the end of the program I'll close with a few thoughts that are on the Top of My Mind. So stay tuned for the seventh edition of "Bear in Mind." I'm your host, Chancellor Berdahl.
Captain Lee Rosenberg
Berdahl: Our first guest, Captain Lee Rosenberg, is the commanding officer of the Navy division of the ROTC. Since receiving his Navy commission in 1977, Captain Rosenberg has served in many military postings. Captain Rosenberg, welcome to Bear in Mind.
Rosenberg: Thank you, Chancellor. It's good to be here.
Berdahl: Tell us a little bit about your experience in the Navy, some of the postings that you've had, and what led you to Berkeley.
Rosenberg: Well, I came into the Navy in 1976, went through Officer Candidate School — I didn't go through ROTC — and was assigned in 1977 to an aircraft carrier, the USS Constellation, which is currently in the Persian Gulf. I spent three years there. A succession of tours after that, including teaching ROTC as a Junior Officer at Northwestern in the early 1980s, then I was assigned mostly to destroyers. I was executive officer of a destroyer during the 1991 Gulf War, and commanding officer of a destroyer that went to the Gulf in 1995. What led me to Berkeley was the opportunity to go back and train my replacements, so to speak. You don't have the opportunity to have as large an impact in the future of the Navy as when you're involved in the commissioning of new officers.
Berdahl: When you first got the Berkeley assignment, what was your reaction? Did you think, ‘Oh my God, that's gotta be a tough ROTC assignment on that campus that's known for its radicalism and anti-war feelings' and so forth?
Rosenberg: I was a little bit nervous. I went to high school in California in the late '60s and 70's, and college in California after that, and I knew about Berkeley's reputation. I had been assigned down in San Diego for a number of years before I came up here. I really didn't know what to expect, I figured the best I could do was come up here, do my job, and try to make the ROTC unit a viable, vital part of the campus.
Berdahl: Well has it been a surprise to you, or different than expected?
Rosenberg: I think it's been different. I think the students are different than expected, much more focused on academia and careers than they were when I went to college, and it shows perhaps in how quiet the campus has been through not only the business we're involved now in Iraq, but during the Afghanistan operation.
Berdahl: Tell me about what constitutes ROTC training here. What kind of experiences and classes do students on campus who are involved, particularly, in NROTC, have?
Rosenberg: Well, we have three programs: Army, Air Force, and the Navy ROTC. What we want to do at the end of four years of an academic program is produce a young second lieutenant in the Marine Corps or ensign in the Navy who has the intellectual and leadership skills to go out to the fleet and be an officer. We primarily insist that they do well academically. We also teach them a series of courses on leadership, the basics of the Navy, an introductory course, and some of the systems they'll find via ships and aircraft that they might serve in. They take these classes for credit, there's a class each semester. They do a lab as well, that includes some close order drill and marching, but much more than that; it's learning leadership techniques, but also how to deal with people and some of the programs that all volunteer forces are involved in.
Berdahl: We've seen during the very, very extensive coverage of this war, how much high technology has influenced military planning, military tactics — it looks like a very complicated technological training that people must go through to handle these very sophisticated weapons systems. Do you get into that?
Rosenberg: We don't get in-depth into the technology of the weapons systems at this point. We try to produce officers who have leadership and intellectual skills; they'll then go on to training after they've graduated and received their commissions, sometimes for up to almost three years, to learn to work on ships and submarines and fly aircraft. But you're right, it's very technically oriented, and they need very specific skills and schools for that.
Berdahl: Are most of the students engineering majors?
Rosenberg: Surprisingly, they're not. We produce an awful amount of officers that go into the Navy nuclear power program, but I think that's because of the caliber of student that comes to Berkeley, they can get through the interview, they've taken the math and physics so that they will do well in the program.
Berdahl: I've been told that the number of students enrolled in our ROTC program is at an all-time high, is that a fact and how do you account for it?
Rosenberg: I think it's at a much higher participation than it was several years ago. Prior to the early '70s, ROTC was a requirement for all male freshman. There were literally hundreds of freshmen involved in the Army program. That requirement was removed as it was in many, many colleges in the '70s, but we've seen a significant increase in participation over the last two years, 70 percent larger in our freshman class last year than in 2001.
Berdahl: What explains that?
Rosenberg: I'm not sure I can put my finger on all of it. I think some of it is the economy, because programs do provide a stipend and scholarship, but I think some of it is a renewed sense of perhaps patriotism or certainly awareness of what the military does, and that's following 9/11 and the conflict in Afghanistan.
Berdahl: Now do the students engage in a summer training program?
Rosenberg: Yes they are. We send all of the students that are on scholarships through a work program each summer that varies from four to six weeks. The first summer they go and get in an experience of what the various branches of the Navy — subs, air, surface, Marine — are like. The next two years they go to sea, and get an experience of what it's like to be a sailor and then finally an officer.
Berdahl: As this war and buildup to the war developed, what were your concerns about the ROTC students on the campus? How have they reacted to it? What kinds of experiences have they been having, as they have worn their uniforms on campus and tabled on Sproul Plaza and so forth?
Rosenberg: Well I think initially there was some concern we might go back to a situation similar to when we had large protests, perhaps unruly protests, like in the 1960s and '70s. That didn't materialize. There was one protest, mostly Berkeley High School students. They came and picketed in front of Hearst Gym where we have our offices. I think some of the students were concerned for their safety. We have a large number of women in the program. The Berkeley campus police have done a very fine job, and it's just not the safety of the students, its also the safety of the protestors and the staff. We don't want anybody to get hurt. We want to make sure that we have the opportunity to each our classes and to provide our services to the campus.
Berdahl: I'm sure that you've been as attached to the TV over the past three weeks, watching the war unfold as many of the rest of us have. There has been a lot of outspoken criticism, some of it somewhat surprising, coming from military officers, about [Secretary of Defense donald] Rumsfeld's war plan, and so forth. What's your take on that? Are students taught to question at all the commands that they're given, or the plans that are developed for them?
Rosenberg: We teach a course, what we call the "Constitutional Paradigm," and the priority of loyalties. And our first loyalty is to the Constitution, that's the oath we swear. And then we're taught after that, that loyalties flow down through the President, and the Secretary of Defense, and the Navy, etc. At the same time, we teach classes — all of the [branches of the] services do —on ethics, and what constitutes lawful orders, and what to do if you're in a situation where you don't believe you can ethically carry out your orders. We also ensure that they understand that any time you question orders, it has to be done publicly, with full disclosure, and with a willingness to take responsibility for your actions.
Berdahl: As you watch this war, and having been through the first Gulf War, have you sort of wished you were there? Is there a hankering to be back in action?
Rosenberg: It's funny you mention that. A few nights ago, I was watching the television, as you were probably, and I go, "You know, I feel guilty I'm not there." I don't really want to be there. I think nobody wants to be in a war, if they've ever been in one before. But I feel guilty because there were young men and women, some of whom I had perhaps worked with in the years past, they were facing danger. I just felt I ought to be there as well.
Berdahl: Very good. Well let's open this to questions from the floor. Who would like to ask the first question? Just step up to the microphone and fire away.
Daniel Tam: Hi, my name is Daniel Tam and I'm an engineering student here. How do you think the mentality of the ROTC students at Berkeley differs from the ROTC students at other schools? Do you find Berkeley ROTC students to be more liberal-minded?
Rosenberg: I'm not sure that they're more liberal-minded. We have ROTC programs at some sincerely liberal schools. I think ROTC attracts students that are probably in some ways more conventional, as far as wanting to pursue a career, than others. They're certainly exposed to probably more liberal elements than they would be at Texas A&M. If I was going to say one thing about the students here though, I would say they're some of the brightest students and young people I've ever run into, and I've been extremely impressed even with the freshmen at how focused and intellectually astute they are.
Berdahl: Having spent some time at Texas, I think I can really vouch for the fact that they are exposed to more liberal elements here than they would ever be at Texas A&M. I'm not sure there are liberal elements at Texas A&M. Another question?
Marie Felde: I'm Marie Felde, a staff member on this campus. Outside the ROTC offices not long ago, I saw a car that was parked there, and it had two bumper stickers: one said, "GO NAVY," the other said "INSPECTIONS, NOT WAR." Can you tell me how you deal with those contradictions with your ROTC students?
Rosenberg: One of the things that we talk about — and I've talked to the media and several venues, and I think the country understands this — you can hate the war but you have to accept and respect the warrior, because he's your brother, he's your uncle, he's your son, or your neighbor. I can understand the bumper sticker: we want to support the people over there doing the bidding of our country, at the same time, I'm really not in the position to make a statement on administrative policy. We talk about the ethics of war in a class I teach for senior year, and the concept of a "just" war. And we go all the way from St. Thomas of Aquinas and Augustine up through Michael Walzer. I lay out the information and I ask them to form their own questions, but at the same time, form their own answers.
Berdahl: It is interesting to me — having been on campuses through the Vietnam period, when there was a great deal of criticism of the troops and those who participated in the war themselves — the difference today, even among the antiwar protestors in this country, it seems to me, is to support the troops. We see signs that say, "Support our troops, bring them home," which is a different attitude toward the troops than I think was the case during Vietnam. Have you seen some of that as well?
Rosenberg: I've seen some of that. I was walking down Bancroft a couple weeks ago, and this lady who I didn't know, but obviously was a member of the staff here, said "Well I hope you don't have to go over here." And it was more an idea of personal concern for our fellow countrymen, and you can tell she wasn't in support of the war, and I think that's appropriate, with an all volunteer force, the individuals that are fighting this war knew that they would perhaps be involved in a conflict when they signed onto the armed forces, and they accepted that responsibility. And I think the military, with the reforms that were done after Vietnam, all volunteer forces gained a great deal of respect.
Berdahl: There was a very interesting article, when you mention the term "all volunteer force," there was an interesting article in Sunday's New York Times [April 8, "For Job and Country; Is This Really An All-Volunteer Army?"], asking the question "just how voluntary is the voluntary military? — in the sense that it draws so much more heavily from poor and underrepresented minorities in our society, and the suggestion being that economic circumstances compel the poorest among us to have to serve in the military because it may be the only easily accessible occupation for them. So how different is the voluntary service?
Rosenberg: I remember the draft, I signed up as a good 18-year-old in 1972, and the draft, until the lottery came about, allowed for people with connections and the financial resources to go to college to avoid service. There are certainly economic incentives for people to join the military, education probably being the best one, and from disadvantaged ethnic groups perhaps, there's a greater draw because it provides a venue to get training and get funding to go on after your service, to go back to Berkeley.
Berdahl: Okay, Captain Rosenberg, thank you very much for being with us today. This was a very interesting interview and I think everyone is enlightened by the experiences you bring to this campus.
International
student panel
Berdahl: For our next interview, we thought it would be interesting to hear firsthand from a small panel of international students how their experience of Berkeley is being affected by America's war with Iraq. All three of our panelists are graduate students. Nicolas Bossut, originally from France, is currently working on his MBA here at the Haas School of Business. Diana Fleming, originally from Dublin, Ireland, is getting her Ph.D. in philosophy. And Thomas Mueller-Spaeth is an exchange student in biotechnology from Germany. How have things on campus changed for you since the American government commenced war with Iraq? Diana let's start with you.
Fleming: I would say my feelings have changed more than anything else, and they’ve changed in two ways. I'm more conscious of being in a foreign country, and I have a greater tendency to edit what I say when I am talking to some of my American colleagues.
Berdahl: You feel like you have to be more cautious?
Fleming: I feel that there are certain things that I can't say, without stopping and thinking "Is it OK to say that to this person?" first.
Berdahl: Diana, can you give us an example — you might not want to do it on the air here — of the kind of thing you feel reluctant to say?
Fleming: Well, for instance I was talking with another international friend of mine, and he was telling me that a Muslim friend of his was thinking of coming to visit from Europe. He had to tell her not to come because, to quote him, "She wouldn't understand what it's like here at the moment." And if I was in that situation, I would feel the same, and I would feel reluctant to express that sentiment to an American. Likewise with an image that was brought up at the beginning of the war by the Germans, the comparison between Bush and Hitler. I would feel more relaxed saying "Yes, I feel to some extent like I am living in Nazi Germany in World War II" to an European than I would saying the same thing to an American.
Berdahl: Nicolas, both you and Tomas are from countries whose governments have strongly opposed the American war in Iraq, France especially has been criticized in the U.S. even to the point where people have started referring to French fries as "freedom fries," a development that I think is really quite immature. Ho has this kind of attitude toward the French affected you?
Bossut: To be honest I don't think it has affected me at all. I feel very fortunate to be studying here at Berkeley where the community is very open, where it values a diversity of opinions. I think everybody at Berkeley understands that you can't just make the world in black and white, "you're with us or you're against us." So it hasn't really affected my life here. I think the French fry thing is more immature as you say than anything else. And sure we have the same common screen on French TV now about Bush and the war.
Berdahl: Have you have some of the same experiences or discomfort that Diana has felt?
Bossut: No, I didn't . I feel it is very interesting hearing what she had to say. I'm not very vocal in my opposition against the war but I never feel like I have to limit what I am saying. My close friends know I am against the war but I never refrain myself from saying anything of feel threatened in any way, shape or form.
Berdahl: Tomas, you're German, and there's been a lot of criticism of the United States in Germany and of course Chancellor [Gerhard] Shroeder actually ran his re-election campaign to a large extent in opposition to any German participation in the war, and I think most people credit his winning that election to that strategy. Has your being in the United States altered the kind of exchange that you have either with people in the United States or with Germans?
Mueller-Spaeth: Well first of all that I have to say that the things I hear about the war and the opposition against the war are mostly directed toward the Bush administration and not directed toward the Americans as a people. As far as my life in Berkeley is concerned, I haven't experienced any negative attitudes from students or professors towards me being a German. I think Berkeley provides very good climate for discussion and for debate on this topic.
Berdahl: Has the reaction on this campus surprised any of you?
Fleming: I've been surprised by the lack of debate among graduate students in my department. Not so much campuswide debate, but lack of debate on an individual level. It seems that people just don't want to talk about it.
Berdahl: To what do you attribute that?
Fleming: I think mixed feelings that a lot of people have — on the one hand they feel that they ought to support the troops and that it's unpatriotic not to support the war, and on the other they feel that it's not clearly justified and they're not sure that America has any business being over in Iraq.
Berdahl: Certainly the one group of American policy planners that seems to have, at least at the present time, the upper hand, the Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld group, see this as a geopolitical move on the part of the United States, and perhaps as an effort to exercise greater military and political control throughout the Middle East. Is that perception understood in Europe?
Bossut: Sure. I think definitely people understand that it's a geopolitical move. It's no coincidence that Bush has been talking about not only Iraq, but a new order in the Middle East, and about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the same time, people I think believe — I believe — that this is just a ploy, just a façade, I don't think Bush is very serious about the Middle East. Maybe he's serious about Iraq, but who knows if he'll be able to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict. That's been going on for a long time. And I think it's also probably a kneejerk reaction to 9-11, the U.S. is going there because it can go there, and trying to link it to September 11 and trying to link it Osama Bin Laden, like "we can fight there, so let's just do it; it's easy so we can do it."
Mueller-Spaeth: The administration obviously tries to make a link between this war on terrorism and this war on weapons of mass destruction. I would say people in Europe, they simply don't buy it, and that's why they don't support the war — or are less willing to support the war.
Bossut: I think it's also important to say that people in Europe and probably the rest of the world have been opposed to war because we believe this is not going to stop terrorism. If anything, this is very likely to create more terrorism. Probably not in the next six months, probably not in the next two years, because these people are not stupid. They're going to wait until the alert goes back to green to strike again. People have been very concerned about that, and that's why they said that if there is a war , we need to have the support of not only the Middle East countries but the world in general, otherwise it's just going to be one strong nation against a weak one — and that's just going to create more hate and terrorism in the world.
Berdahl: Let's open it up to questions from the floor.
Robert Fan: Hi my name is Robert Fan, I'm a first-year applied math/econ major here, and this is a question for any of you. What are your countries' views about England's stance on the war? There has been discussion about England not even being a part of Europe now because of their stance.
Mueller-Spaeth: One view is that this attitude is very opportunistic, acting with the United States for reasons that England might get bigger influence in Europe and might act as an ambassador for the U.S. And there are feelings that England somehow splits Europe on this question and that the European Union has gotten weaker, that it has been a big blow at the development of the European Union that Europe was not able to find a compromise on this topic.
Bossut: England is interesting, but it is not surprising in this sense. What has been most surprising to me is Spain, where you have 95 percent of the population is opposed to the war, and you have Prime Minister [Jose Maria] Aznar, who's going to run for re-election pretty soon and yet he is siding with the Americans for very hard to understand objectives.
Berdahl: Is there any place in Europe where the population supports the war? I don't know of any. Other questions?
Puneet Kakkar: Good morning, my name is Puneet and I'm a second-year French and political economy major here at Cal. Unfortunately one thing I have seen develop is a stereotype about Europe and their mentality about the war. So I wondered how each of you has personally responded to a stereotype about your own culture.
Berdahl: There have been a lot of stereotypical comments about the French — "The French are being French." What does that mean?
Bossut: You know, what I always say about the French fries or the "freedom fries" is that I'm very proud that the Americans have decided to name their French fries freedom fries because when you replace one word by another you usually mean that they have the same meaning, and French does stand for freedom. We had the Declaration of Human Rights, we gave the U.S. its Statue of Liberty, so we're all about freedom and I am very happy about that. That's the way I try to turn things around.
Berdahl: Diana?
Fleming: It seems to me there have been less stereotypes about Irish people, in part because Americans tend not to think of Irish people as Europeans, and in part because there are close cultural ties between Ireland and the U.S. So I haven't really noticed much stereotyping of Irish people.
Berdahl: What about the Germans? The stereotype we have always had is that Germans follow orders, there's always a strong military tradition in Germany, and yet the fact is that there's a very strong antimilitary attitude in Germany. Tomas, have you encountered stereotypes?
Mueller-Spaeth: Yes — in the past, Germany has always followed the U.S. in foreign policy, and now that they're opposing the war, they're called cowards. I think this is contradicting itself, because on the one hand Germany was expected to follow, on the other they are taking an opposite position towards the U.S. and I would say that this is just the opposite of being cowardly.
Berdahl: Do you each of you have a message that you would like to leave the audience with, your last comments on the war and the discussion that we've had? Nicolas, let's start with you.
Bossut: Not a comment on the war, but a personal comment. I would encourage students to spend some time abroad, not just visit Europe for two weeks, not just visit Asia for just two-three weeks, but actually do a semester abroad, do what we're doing. I think this will only benefit Americans in the long term, if you leave your country and your state and try to understand the world.
Fleming: I would make a similar comment. I think it's important for Americans to realize that there are non-democratic cultures in the world and that's OK.
Mueller-Spaeth: I would leave the message that people should be critical of the mass media and question them. I think basing your opinion just on CNN and CNN.com and the department of Homeland Security is a very narrow-minded thing. On CNN for instance, there's more talking about tactics and troops and 3-D animations of things than about background and political analyses. And the Homeland Security in my opinion is trying to enhance the necessity for war by bringing out a duct-tape warning, that you should buy so many gallons of water to protect yourself against terrorism, and by raising the homeland security level to orange. So I would recommend questioning the media, being critical about it.
Berdahl: Thank you Tomas, Diana, and Nicolas for your comments on this. I hope that you each feel that Berkeley is a place where you will feel comfortable to express your views and that you feel free to represent whatever point of view you take on this or any other issue. We're grateful for having you on this program today. Thank you very much. That was Nicolas Bossut, Diana Fleming, and Thomas Mueller-Spaeth.
Professor T.J. Pempel
Berdahl: On March 14 this year, a meeting occurred on our campus that brought together delegates from North Korea and ten other countries. Sponsored by the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asian Pacific [CSCAP], its purpose was to discuss growing nuclear tensions on the Korean peninsula. The meeting included dignitaries from North Korea, including their U.N. ambassador. Our next guest, Professor T.J. Pempel, director of the Institute of East Asian Studies, is a member of the Council and played a key role in bringing the meeting to Berkeley. Professor Pempel, welcome to Bear in Mind.
Pempel: Thank you very much, it’s a pleasure to be here.
Berdahl: This meting really was a very important meeting in terms of "backroom diplomacy," having had representatives of the North Korean government here. Can you tell us how it came about, and was it difficult to put together?
Pempel: Well, CSCAP has been meeting for 10 years, typically on an annual basis. And there are several working groups within CSCAP that meet quite regularly. The basic idea behind this is to try to provide some opportunity for broad discussion of issues in a non-public forum, and in an unofficial way. About a year ago, I proposed to CSCAP that they consider holding a meeting here. CSCAP itself finally made the decision to go with us about four months ago, and I think it was a tribute to their perception of the strengths that Berkeley could bring to the table that allowed them to go with that decision.
Berdahl: Well, tell us a little about the meeting and what you learned from it.
Pempel: I guess the thing that was most striking to me was the fact that both the American and the North Korean positions on the question of nuclear proliferation — whether North Korea is leaning toward nuclear weapons and the like — have been pretty much cast in black and white. I was quite surprised that the North Korean delegates actually had a sense of humor, actually were willing to deviate from the official text. They were quite willing to talk behind the scenes to talk to representatives of other countries, including representatives from the U.S. I was actually quite surprised that some of the representatives from the U.S. were willing to step away from official American doctrine and talk about ways perhaps that some of the tensions between the two countries could be resolved. Of course, this is all unofficial, but in many respects I think that’s the great strength of a program like CSCAP, it allows ideas to be put on the table and for governments then to consider ways they might shift their positions in response.
Berdahl: You must have come away somewhat encouraged then, from those discussions.
Pempel: I was actually greatly encouraged because personally I am of course very concerned about the possibility that the series of moves by North Korea and the reactions by the U.S., including the doctrine of preemptive war, including the inclusion of North Korea in the so-called "Axis of Evil," run the risks of shifting Northeast Asia from what has generally been a relatively tranquil and economic focus over the last 20 to 25 years, to one in which the military regains pre-eminence, in which actions by North Korea, actions by the U.S., could lead to an arms race across Northeast Asia and lead quite obviously to the outbreak of war or massively heightened tensions. The fact that both countries seemed anxious to turn down the volume and turn down the flames was to some extent very encouraging.
Berdahl: There’s obviously been a discussion in this country about the pre-emptive strategy, and what it may bring about. Some have said, "Well, clearly the purpose of the Iraqi war is to warn everybody else not to engage in the development of weapons of mass destruction," and others have said "Well, it will encourage proliferation, because if other countries develop nuclear weapons, obviously we will be less inclined to take them on." What is your take on that particular discussion.?
Pempel: I think that was certainly the perception on the part of the North Koreans. I think they are quite genuinely afraid that after Iraq, they may be next. It may take the form of military action, it more likely would take the form of some sort economic sanctions designed to topple the regime, but I think clearly the administration in Washington has been telegraphing a message that says we are about creating a new order, in which so called rogue regimes will not be allowed to send out weapons of mass destruction or develop them.
But I do think that this runs the risk of a serious backfire because to the extent that North Korea begins developing its plutonium capability and developing its capacity to produce fissile material, and the fact that this is an extremely impoverished country — roughly 2 million Koreans have died of starvation — it’s a country that’s quite anxious to keep itself economically viable. One of the most easy things they can sell are missiles and conceivably if they have fissile material, it would not be hard to pack a suitcase full of that stuff and sell it to the highest bidder from Hamas, or Hezbollah, or al-Qaeda. I’m quite concerned that the current policies in Washington could have the risk of a serious blowback affect that was not anticipated.
Berdahl: The economic sanctions that have been imposed on North Korea haven’t seemed to work. Is there any thought that they would work in the future, is there any alternative to our backing off from the very strident position that we’ve taken about no negotiations, no discussions, and so forth?
Pempel: I think that the difficulty right now is that both sides have taken positions that are pretty absolute. The North Koreans are essentially taking the position that their issues are with the United States, they want some guarantee that the U.S. isn’t going to topple the regime, and they’re insisting that this is an issue between North Korea and the U.S., and should be subject to a bilateral set of negotiations. Washington, in turn, has said this is an issue that really has profound effects across the Northeast Asian region, and any discussion would have to be multilateral — that if we sit down to bilateral discussion, we’re simply "rewarding bad behavior."
I think both sides have painted pretty absolutist positions. My hope is that meetings like the CSCAP meeting here will enable both sides to begin figuring a way to fudge the difference: to have some sort of meeting that in fact each side claims exactly what it wants. Who knows, a multilateral meeting in Mongolia in which one room is set aside for the North Koreans and the Americans to meet bilaterally, but the room next door includes Russians, Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans. I’m not sure what the venue would be, but I think serious people are very hopeful that both sides will sit down and begin talking. And talking in ways that will involve a tough line by the U.S., and one that essentially says "Nuclear weapons in the North are not acceptable," but at the same time provides economic incentives that would encourage the North Koreans to move away from the development of nuclear weapons. In the long run I think it’s got to be that combination of carrot and stick played together that will begin to resolve this tense situation.
Berdahl: What role do you see China playing in this?
Pempel: China played a very interesting role in the meetings (in Berkeley) and I have to say that the position of many of the governments and many of the other countries was one that essentially said that China has great economic influence over North Korea. China provides the bulk of North Korea’s foreign assistance etc. — "If you guys would tighten the screws and use your influence, you could play a large role in resolving this question."
Interestingly, the Chinese delegates took the position that "we are relatively powerless in this, we have little to say about North Korea — they’re an autonomous country, this is a problem for you guys to work out." I have to confess, I felt quite honestly that the Chinese were actually enjoying the fact that there were certain divisions among the Americans, the Japanese, the South Koreans on this issue, and they were feeling that so long as there is division among these three countries, that China stands in the long run to benefit.
But at the same time China has clearly taken the position that a North Korean nuclear program is not acceptable to China, they don’t want nuclear weapons on their doorstep. And from what I’ve been hearing the last two or three days, there have been a few cut-offs of assistance from China to North Korea just on a one-day, 24-hour basis. I think the message is quite clearly being telegraphed that the Chinese government would not be very happy to see the North Koreans continue down the nuclear road. And I think we’ve seen the North Koreans backing off from some of the rapid movements that they were making. They have not yet begun the development of plutonium, for example. It looks like they are backing off quite quickly, and it looks like the Americans are sending signals that they are willing to back off from some of the harder lines that they articulated about a month and a half ago.
Berdahl: Very good. Well let’s open this to questions from the audience.
Puneet Kakkar: Professor, I sincerely respect the multilateral approach, the diplomacy that you have in arranging this meeting, or being a participant in this meeting. I just want to know what challenges do you see the U.S. government having, such as the ability to have an open dialogue with the North Korean government as you had on this campus.
Pempel: As several of the speakers earlier have said, the current administration in Washington seems to have an agenda that has been predominantly unilateral rather than multilateral, and at best, it’s what one representative of the administration called "á la carte multilateralism" — that is to say, "we’ll take our multilateralism as we choose, but we’re not taking the whole smorgasbord."
So I’m quite worried about this situation. I think there are people within the administration, primarily in the State Department who recognize the tremendous conventional weapons threat that North Korea can pose to the region, to South Korea obviously, to Japan as well, and who, starting from that position, are very anxious to try to act diplomatically, to mobilize the rest of the countries in the region in ways to try to resolve this, and if that means providing economic assistance or providing some forms of incentives for North Korea, they’re willing to do that. But I think conversely there are others in the administration who take a much harder line and feel that anything that provides North Korea or the current regime — Kim Jong-Il and his government — with help, assistance, continuity, air that will keep him alive, is a mistake, and that somehow that regime has to change. So I think there’s a battle going on in Washington that quite honestly I hope is resolved in favor of the more diplomatically oriented individuals there, but I’m not holding my breath for that to happen.
Berdahl: Other questions.
Nicola Rubenstein: Good morning, my name is Nicola Rubenstein. I’m a graduate student in the molecular and cell biology department here, and I’m a German student but I’ve lived here for 10 years. My question to Professor Pempel is, what do you think is the impact of the language is that our, and I mean the U.S. government, uses a lot of times by saying the "Axis of Evil"? And it could go a long way, I think, if our government would be more careful in the way they express their opinions. And on the other hand, maybe it does work, maybe the threat or this black-and-white talk does help to intimidate North Korea. I wanted to know what you think about that.
Pempel: I get very worried when any government begins to move into Orwellian uses of languages that are designed to camouflage rather than convey real meaning. As I’m sure many people know, the apparent determination of this phrase "Axis of Evil" was one that speechmakers came up with, and the inclusion of North Korea seemed in many respects designed to show that America’s concerns were not just anti-Muslim but "we could find a non-Muslim country that is potentially evil as well." I worry about that, and I worry about the message it sends to the rest of the world.
I guess the thing that non-U.S. citizens need to recognize is the fact that any politician in Washington is always looking in at least two directions simultaneously: one is looking out at the rest of the world, and how words that are used play out there, but quite clearly, there’s also an eye toward Americans and what plays in the U.S. and what’s going to play electorally. It seems to me an awful lot of the rhetoric out of the current administration is designed to mobilize American citizens behind the President, to assist in the creation of a long-term string of Republican victories, I think it worked in 2002 with the Senate and the House, and certainly the way the Republicans savaged Senator [Tom] Daschle when he was minimally critical of the failure of diplomacy suggests that an awful lot of what is done in Washington is done for electoral purposes rather than purely diplomatic purposes.
Berdahl: Well, thank you very much Professor Pempel, that was a very interesting conversation. We all look with a good deal of concern to the future and the situation as it pertains to North Korea. It’s wonderful to have an expert on this area of the world, that is so distinguished as you, on our campus. We’re very grateful for you being on "Bear in Mind."
Pempel: Thank you very much.
Berdahl: That was Professor T.J. Pempel, Director of the Institute of East Asian Studies at Berkeley.
General Q&A
Berdahl: Let’s open the floor and take a few questions from our studio audience. You don’t need to limit your remarks to the topics we covered this morning to ask a question. Just stand up, speak into the microphone, so we get it on tape.
Nicolas Bossut: Hi, I’m Nicolas, a first-year MBA student at Haas. There’s been concern recently in the graduate division section that either you or the UC Regents intend to raise tuition at the business school by up to $10,000 a year. I wonder if you have any comments on that.
Berdahl: Well, I think that is not in the offing in the immediate future, I’ll put it that way. As you know, the professional fees at Berkeley are well below what the professional fees are at comparable programs. I was just interested to note that in the U.S. News and World Report, the Haas Business School was ranked seventh this past week. So it has a very high ranking, it’s an outstanding business school, and yet the charges for the MBA program are roughly a fourth or a third than of what they are at other leading public business schools. We have a grave difficulty competing with salaries and program dollars with those business schools that generate a great deal more money. I think there will be an effort to educate people about the need for us to be in a business school, where I think you as a MBA student who certainly understands the market, that we have a fee structure that pertains more closely to the market nationally. But I don’t think that’s going to happen in the immediate future. You’ll get out before that happens.
Monica Ann Cundiff: Hi, my name is Monica Cundiff, and I’m an integrative biology student. We’ve talked a lot about the war today, and I’m curious to know what your opinion on the war on Iraq and the American administration is.
Berdahl: As I’ve said publicly, it’s always difficult for me to express myself because when I express my own views, I am seen as speaking on behalf of the University. There’s a publication on the campus that’s called for my resignation because I’ve been somewhat outspoken on the issue of the war. When I do express myself, I am speaking for myself and not for the university, or in any official capacity — strictly in a personal capacity.
I am troubled by the transformation of American foreign policy that this war and the pre-emptive foreign policy represents. I am concerned that the ultimate purpose of the war is geopolitical, I’m concerned that it may very well shortly lead to conflict in Syria, possibly in Iran, and I’m concerned that the kind of statements that the administration has made in dividing the world between those who support us and those who don’t support us, historically, is not a diplomatic way to approach the problems that we confront.
Having said that, obviously, I think everyone is glad to see Saddam Hussein gone; this was a tyranny of major proportions, but the question is, as I said in an op-ed piece, whether or not this is the right way to get rid of him. There are consequences of this, I worry that it will create more terrorists, that it will alienate the Muslim population of the world. There are over a billion Muslims in the world, if one-tenth of 1 percent of them are driven into radicalism as a consequence of actions that we take, that’s a million radical Muslims that might potentially hate the United States. I think that there are real consequences of actions and I am not certain that the direction that American foreign policy has taken is the direction that I’d like to see our country take.
Top of Mind
Berdahl: And here are a few things that are on the top of my mind. This is the time of year that we have this bittersweet feeling about the university, as students prepare to graduate and move on to what’s next in their lives. It is a time of endings and beginnings. We've just admitted a new class of students, who got the word of their admission on the first of April, and they’re excited about this new phase in their lives. It is what I think is so wonderful about a university, that it is constantly being refreshed by new minds.
We're graduating probably the very best graduating class that we have had in the history of Berkeley, judging by all of the metrics that we can use to evaluate the quality of students. We've had a wonderful year, with students participating in so many, many rich activities, but we're also admitting, in this new class of students who'll be entering in the fall, the very best students that we've ever admitted to the university. So at this time of the year, as spring refreshes, we do think of beginnings and endings, and we think of the new careers that are beginning as students enter the university, and students leave. This is a great time of year for a university. It is the time when we really capture what the accomplishments have been by people and we recognize them.
So as we prepare to bid farewell to the grad class and bid welcome to the incoming class, we're grateful to both for committing themselves to Berkeley and knowing that their lives have been and will be transformed by their experiences here. That's what's on the top of my mind as we prepare for Commencement.
Well, that’s our program for April. Until next time, I’m Chancellor Bob Berdahl, signing off. Thanks for listening.