Frederica Freyberg:

President Donald Trump began his global travels this week in Canada at the G-7 economic conference. But it was his departure to Singapore and his summit with Kim Jong-un that captured the world’s attention. Post-summit, the president guaranteed North Koreas commitment to denuke. But the agreement shows no detail on how, when or with what degree of U.S. scrutiny. Green Bay area Congressman Mike Gallagher is a former U.S. Marine and a current member of the House Armed Services Committee. He joins us from Washington by phone. Thanks very much for doing so.

Mike Gallagher:

Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Frederica Freyberg:

So with your expertise in intelligence and international affairs, what’s your initial take on the deal President Trump made with Kim Jong-un?

Mike Gallagher:

I certainly support what the White House is trying to do. I think all of us should want the president to be successful because all of us want to resolve this crisis peacefully. But I do think there are a lot of questions that have to be raised in response to the Singapore summit. And I think we here in Congress are eagerly awaiting Secretary Pompeo or whoever the administration sends to have an honest discussion. Because quite honestly, even the phrase denuclearization that gets thrown around, we simply don’t know what Kim Jong-un means when he says that. In fact, a lot of times that’s being filtered through a South Korean press and it’s getting distorted a little bit. When he talks about denuclearization, he really means suspension of further development of the program combined with Americans getting rid of our presence on the peninsula and our security guarantees for our allies which obviously is unacceptable. And we’re talking about dismantlement. So it’s unclear to me what exactly he agreed to even though the phrase denuclearization gets bandied around. Additionally I think there’s some questions to be raised around the extent to which China is already violating some of the sanctions. The president seemed to suggest as much in his press conference afterwards. If indeed that’s the case, I dont think we should turn a blind eye. I think we should be enhancing economic pressure on the Chinese because the one thing we don’t want to happen is we don’t want a protracted negotiation process to play out while the maximum pressure campaign is sort of losing steam. I give the administration enormous credit for embarking on the maximum pressure campaign. I think that is the right approach. But certainly we can’t slow that down. It gives us the best chance to resolve this peacefully.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yeah. So should we trust North Korea?

Mike Gallagher:

Not at all. Not for one second. Any objective observer of the last 30 years of our diplomacy with North Korea would have to conclude that the only consistent thing they’ve done is lie and violate and abrogate pretty much every agreement. In fact, in the ’90s in the Clinton Administration, they agreed to halt development on the plutonium track. And then covertly advanced a program on the uranium track. I think everyone should approach North Korean intentions with a great deal of skepticism. Sort of the old Reagan adage is “Trust but verify.” But I think when dealing with this regime, we need to go further. It should be “Distrust, distrust and do everything you can to verify.” Which leads to another interesting point. I mean think about what it would take to ascertain whether Kim is complying with any agreement, even if we get a more detailed agreement later on. If Mike Pompeo is able to work out the details. They would really have to open up their country to intrusive verification and inspection mechanism. In many ways, it might even be more difficult than the challenge we face with Iran. But I think the Iran deal gives us a good example of what not to do, right? We can’t frontload concessions. We can’t allow for the counter party to restrict access to certain military sites. We can’t ignore human rights. We can’t ignore regional behavior. These are many reasons why the Iran deal failed. But perhaps most importantly, obviously the previous administration decided it was going to avoid Congressional approval, not submit it to Congress as a treaty. And I think that’s a large reason why the agreement didn’t out-last President Obamas term in office. So I think it would be wise for the Trump Administration to submit any agreement they get to Congress. And I actually think that would enhance their negotiating leverage. I’m sorry to go on here, but there’s well-established literature and political science about the nature of two-level games. And basically that means when the White House sits down at a negotiation, they can point to us in Congress and say hey, we got all these crazy people who demand a seat at the table. They need to approve any agreement. That’s why we’re insisting on some pretty tough conditions here. That’s the way our system works and it actually helps the White House if Congress demands a greater role.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, thank you very much for talking with us about this. Congressman Mike Gallagher.

Mike Gallagher:

Thank you very much. It’s an honor to be here.