welcome to this edition of "amanpour" on pbs. tonight, my conversation with the highest level western official to visit north korea in six years. as kim jong-un continues to make giant leaps with his nuclear program. >> where we agree was on the need to prevent war, but what concerned me was the reliance of the dprk host solely on deterrence, meaning their military programs. >> plus, xi is still the first and only u.s. secretary of state to hold talks with the kim dynasty. madeleine albright joins the show.

"amanpour" on pbs was made possible by the generous support of roslyn p. walter. >> good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. i'm christiane amanpour in london with the global perspective. president trump tweets have given us a glimpse how he views the world, but when it comes to the big picture, much is still a mystery, but on monday that will change when the president plans to unveil his long-awaited national security strategy. it will likely identify global threats and rogue regimes. no doubt high on that list, north korea. few outsiders ever get into north korea, let alone speak to officials at the highest level. the u.n.'s political affairs chief, jeffrey feldman, is back from pyongyang from what he calls the most important mission he's undertaken.

he's also served in the u.s. government as assistant secretary of state and he joined me from the u.n.. undersecretary feldman, welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> you have just come back from pyongyang the first high level western official in years and years. have you come back reassured, is the threat of war or accidental conflict with north korea off the table now? >> christiane, i went to pyongyang concerned about the situation and returned from pyongyang concerned about the situation. i had the opportunity, the time, the space to really convey our messages of concern, alarm, our assistance on the importance of the security council resolutions, but whether or not this message will have an impact, i think, only time will tell. the situation is very, very dangerous and i hope my hosts understand how risky the

situation is. >> secretary feltman, i hear some coded language there, you hope they understand how dangerous the situation is. let me just quote what you have been quoted as saying behind closed doors briefing about your trip. you're deeply worried about the north korean response and the lack of urgency in pyongyang to address the dangerous crisis. i mean, what made you so worried? what did the foreign minister say to you? >> again, these are the first policy dialogues that we have had, in-depth policy dialogues, in nearly eight years. so i don't want to draw too many conclusions from one series of meetings. we had more than 15 hours of discussions between the dprk delegation and the u.n. delegation, which again gave us the opportunity to explain why we were so concerned, to emphasize the importance of full implementation of security council resolutions. where we agree was on the need to prevent war, but what concerned me was the reliance of

the dprk hosts solely on deterrence, meaning their military programs, whereas we see the prevention of war as depending on a lot of things, including the implementation of the security council resolutions, addressing the concerns of the international community about the nuclear and missile program, and starting to open some kind of channel of communications at a technical level that can prevent, you know, any incidents from turning into, you know, an accidental war. >> jeffrey feltman, did you get a sense of what they think of the united states policy, for instance? what they think of rex tillerson saying, as he did this week, that they are open to negotiations without preconditions, and then to see the white house sort of slap that down and say, no, our policy hasn't changed. do you get a sense they know what's coming at them from the west? >> i'm a bit concerned,

christiane, that they don't understand that it's not simply a united states concern. they are quite focused, at least based on the discussions i had, it seems they are quite focused on the statements from washington on the policy as they interpret it from washington, but one of the purposes of the secretary-general sending me to pyongyang was to make sure they understood that the concerns extend far beyond washington, seoul, or tokyo. that neighbors and traditional friends of the dprk share the same concerns about the direction of events on the korean peninsula. that the security council resolutions are passed unanimously, that that's a signal to them that they don't only need to be addressing concerns with washington, they need to be thinking about the overall alarm of the international community in their refusal to abide by the security council resolutions. >> you must have got a sense from them that they don't intend

to give it up. i'm going to ask you now, did they give you any sense there was any diplomatic route that would lead them to denuclearization as the whole world demands? >> it's a topic i tried to go around from all sorts of directions, christiane, and at least in terms of long-term aspirations, they understand there has to be peaceful denuclearization of the korean peninsula, that there has to be some kind of arrangements that's based on -- that's based on a diplomatic solution. even the security council resolutions that they don't like always talk about the need for a political, diplomatic, peaceful solution to the security challenges of the korean peninsula. but they also kept citing the lack of trust, and that the lack of trust in their mind meant that they had to rely on deterrence, meaning military

deterrence, rather than on diplomatic dialogue in the short term. >> what would give them more of a feeling of trust? what could happen? >> well, you know, they've talked publicly about what they describe as hostile u.s. policy. they need to see a change in hostile u.s. policy, so we try to explore that, exactly what does that mean, what signals would they be looking for? but i'm really concerned, christiane, that you've got a lack of any kind of viable communications at the technical level. no military to military talks across the 38th parallel. there's no trust right now, and there's nuclear and military developments that defy security council resolutions. this is a really dangerous combination. so we really try to emphasize the need to move in a different way, comply with the security council resolutions, open up some kind of technical channels that would allow -- that would

prevent the risk of war. i'm reminded of that recent book that came out by the historian christopher clark about world war i, you know, the sleepwalkers. i'm really worried about a accidental move towards conflict, given the overall refusal to comply with the security council and the lack of trust, the lack of communication, the high risk of some kind of miscalculation. >> and we're seeing the security council area behind you, so there's, obviously, still a lot of diplomacy trying to make itself work, but, you know, you talk about the sleepwalkers. the u.n. secretary-general today warned against the risk of sleepwalking into conflict, and the north koreans started to get very exercised, telling the united states they must stop their blockade or their planned blockade, and that the united states seemed to be bent on going to war. does anybody know what they are talking about? is there a blockade planned? >> i'm not aware of what the

u.s. or other member states, you know, measure their planning are, but i'm very aware of the unity of the security council. the north koreans talked a lot about the need for deterrence because of the lack of trust. well, deterrence is enhanced by some kind of dialogue. if you look at the cold war between the soviet union and the united states, there were all these channels that were open of some kind of communication to diffuse the potential crisis. and i think that we need to be encouraging the dprk officials to reopen the types of channels that they closed in 2009, but that's within the context of continuing to push for the full implementation of the security council resolutions. >> and lastly, while the feed behind you changes to the u.n. logo, let me ask you, undersecretary-general, you keep talking about their assistance on deterrence and your insistence, the world's insistence following the u.n.

security council resolutions and denuclearization. of course, this will be difficult, but i think the very, very sad truth is that it's his judgment it would be more dangerous to prevent north korea from getting to the state than it would be to try to cope with north korea in that state. what do you think of that? >> well, christiane, i'm a u.n. secretary official, undersecretary-general for political affairs. i am guided by the security council resolutions, which have a clear aim of peaceful denuclearization of the korean peninsula, and my hosts didn't reject that over as a long-term goal. but they -- they would continue to repeat the fact that right now, that they need the deterrent that their program provides. what encouraged me was the seriousness with which they treated our discussions. i've been in many diplomatic

meetings where one side of the table, maybe both sides of the table, simply read talking points and give long monologues to each other that repeat well known positions or vitriol. that's not what happened. they listened extremely carefully to the points that we were making over the four and a half days that we were in pyongyang. i'm not saying that they accepted everything we said, and i don't know if they'll accept anything that we said, but they gave us a fair hearing about why the international community was so alarmed, about why they have an obligation to abide by the security council resolutions, but why it's more than simply a legal matter of the u.n. charter, that it's a matter of peace and security on the korean peninsula that they start moving in a different direction. they gave us the time and the space to go over a lot of different ideas. it wasn't simply a passing back and forth of talking points. and that's one thing that i

found to be constructive. whether or not the trip was successful, i don't know, only the long term will say, but i think it was a constructive engagement we were able to have when we were in pyongyang. >> that is kind of an encouraging note to end on, but can i ask you in that regard then, will you keep the north korea channel open? there is a north korean ambassador at the u.n., you have been meeting with him. is that a channel that you can use as you go forward? >> we've met -- he and i met earlier, a couple of hours ago in order to compare notes about the trip. he was there as part of the delegation, he stayed afterwards, helped prepare the report to the senior leadership about the trip, so he and i compared notes today about our impressions, about what we might do later. we are available. we in the u.n. are available for whatever the parties would think would be helpful. i'm not pretending that we're miracle workers, i'm not pretending that suddenly u.n.

mediation is going to be able to resolve what's a very serious issue of nuclear proliferation and peace and security on the korean peninsula, but whatever we can do to lower tensions, we will try. we have the impartiality to the organization, channels to all parties in the talks, we're a voice for peace, and i think we can contribute to creating a conducive atmosphere for a time when talks can resume, talks with a purpose can resume. so i want us to remain available, to play any kind of role, but i can't speculate right now what exactly that might be. >> well, we wish you luck, because it is really such a difficult and dangerous crisis. undersecretary-general jeffrey feltman, thanks for joining me. >> thank you. now, my next guest is in a unique position to discuss north korea. madeleine albright is still the first and only u.s. secretary of state to ever visit the country and to have held direct talks with its leader. in a trip that she made in the

year 2000. this week she sat down with me to talk about president trump's handling of the crisis and its shifting policy on russia, syria, and climate change. in the second part of our conversation, we drill down on north korea and whether president trump hopes that china can step in and save the day are well founded or misplaced. secretary albright, welcome to the program. >> great to be with you, christiane. >> let's take the really biggest crisis, at least as far as i can see right now on the world stage, and that is the north korean crisis, the potential for some blundering into a war, military intervention, or the very fact that north korea has such an advanced nuclear weapons program. i was stunned to read today that certain chinese villages and towns near the border have started to set up or start the process of building refugee camps just in case there is an exodus of north koreans across their borders. i mean, what is your sort of

weather vain say? how worried are you that this actually could descend into a very bad way? >> well, i'm worried that it could in another way, which is that there will be an accident that happens between the north koreans and americans who are there in terms of these exercises and planes flying and a number of different aspects of it. i do think that the chinese want to continue stressing the refugees. i was in a situation recently where it's more likely the north koreans would want to go to south korea, where the language is the same and they'd be respected not in the way the chinese are dealing with them, but i think people are concerned, generally, about instability in a very important part of the world, and that the united states is not to go back to your original question, is not as fully engaged as it

should be and that talks, everything has to be a zero-sum game, that we are not fully aware of what our responsibilities are in the region. >> you know, we've sort of seen this kind of seesawing in recent history between the united states and north korea. you are still the only sitting u.s. official who's visited pyongyang. you met with kim jong-il, the father of the current leader. under president clinton there was this thing called the greagd framework which tried to control their nuclear ambitions, then came president bush who thought he could get a better deal, and apparently president obama told president trump that north korea would be the biggest challenge on his foreign policy agenda. give us an idea to skeptical people of where diplomacy has ever led the united states with north korea. >> well, i think all of us that have dealt with north korea or studied it since the end of world war ii know that this has been an incredibly difficult

problem. there's no question about it. and i think that nobody should really underestimate how difficult this truly is, and that it goes back and forth. i think -- i am very ready to say that we were at the end of the clinton administration in a position where we had begun to talk to them about their missile limits, and by the way, when we left office, the north koreans did not have fiscal material, did not have nuclear weapons or icbms, and we were in the middle of talks, and i think that it's unfortunate the bush administration did not follow those talks. but i do think that it is a difficult situation and diplomacy might work. by the way, what is interesting is the undersecretary-general of the united nations, jefffeltm fn has just been there, i think multilateral diplomacy also has a role in this and we can't give

up in terms of using the diplomatic tool or the economic tool of sanctions or, frankly, that it is important that we have a deterrent force out there in order to show what all is in the tool box. >> the president seems to put everything on china. seems to really believe that only china can fix this for the world and the united states. in fact, he's said i'm very disappointed in china, they do nothing with north korea, just talk. we'll no longer allow this to continue. china could easily solve the problem. can it? >> well, i think that we do believe, and i do, that the chinese have the greatest influence on north korea. there are those who will tell all of us the chinese don't have as much influence than we think, but they clearly have more influence than most of us on china, because they do provide an awful lot of the fuel that serves their economy and allows them to move forward. but that doesn't mean that it's the chinese alone.

the truth is, i believe that the united states really does have a role in this, and i know from my own experience. by the way, i'm still the highest level sitting official to have ever gone to pyongyang to meet with a leader, and i know how important it is for them to have some contact with the united states. and if there's nothing -- it's not a gift to talk to another country. diplomacy is a tool and a very important one in the national security tool box. the chinese have to be a part of this, but so do the japanese and the south koreans and the americans in some way to try to help solve what i agree with you is a very, very dangerous situation. >> i've been told by intelligence and security people here in the united kingdom that while the u.s. and china are talking a lot about north korea, they appear to have different agendas talking past each other. for the united states it's all about north korea, i'm told.

for china, it's all about keeping the united states at bay, reducing the u.s. presence, especially military presence, in that area. does that ring true to you? >> i do think that the chinese have made clear that they do not want to have an overwhelming american presence, and they don't like the fact that the south koreans are wanting to deploy a defense mechanism, or that we do joint exercises with the south koreans, or that americans are in south korea. but they are much more interested in having a larger influential role in that part of asia, but it doesn't mean that we are totally talking past each other. i do think we do have different interests, and as you know, there are many times we do cooperate with countries that have a slightly different interest, and you do try to get others involved in state craft to try to get some solution to a

difficult problem, and the chinese are part of it. i think part of it, christiane, is that they believe that all we want to see is a collapse of north korea. they are afraid about a lot of refugees coming into china, and they do not want to see a reunified north korea with the americans coming up close to their borders. so we do have a somewhat different approach to this. >> you mentioned china when we first started to talk just now, and you mentioned that china seems to be seeing an opportunity to fill a leadership gap vacuum in the pacific area. is that really the case? hasn't china always been reluctant to step into the world leadership role? >> it's very interesting that you say that, because i was at the united nations at the time where the chinese were reluctant to step into a leadership role and they didn't want to discuss anything unless it had something to do with interference and internal affairs, and so one of the issues was when china was

actually going to be more involved regionally and the issues that affect it. i think the opposite has happened now. the chinese are working to fill that vacuum, whether it's president xi at davos, where he starts talking about climate change and economic issues, where they are talking about one belt, one road. where they, in fact, are making inroads in a lot of economic ways all over the world in the middle east, and i just come from latin america and talked to a number of leaders there, and basically also the chinese are investing in a number of places and being very involved, so i think they are very deliberately moving forward and filling the vacuum. this is not an accident. china is rising or has risen, and they are working to fill that vacuum. >> and to play the devil's advocate, certainly to you who believes in american global leadership, if china becomes the global superpower, the dominant

player on the world stage, why is that bad? i mean, is that good? does it take a lot of burden away from the united states? what does a china-led world look like? >> let me say, i don't think that the united states should be leading the world alone. i believe in partnership. there's nothing about the world, you know, that we are -- that we really cowant to leave the world alone. i do think that it does harm american interests when, in fact s there is a huge power that has don't views on issues in terms of what kind of a democratic or economic model it has. i would welcome partnership with the chinese and other powers. i think that's the way it ought to work, but the united states, as the indispensable nation, and by the way there's nothing in the word indispensable that says alone, but that it's better to do things in partnership. so when the chinese take a larger role at the u.n., i think

that's a positive aspect. when they try to keep us out of somewhere, or where we are not because we're not engaged, i think then that lessens america's influence and power. >> and you talk about people who need to know what they are doing and, you know, diplomatic work that really does work. now, what do you make then of jerusalem, the issue that president trump has now put on the table in a way that took the world by surprise? obviously, i ask you because during the clinton administration there was so-called peace and prosperity years. there was an active middle east peace process, and it looked like it was going places. what do you think this statement on jerusalem means? i mean, there is no peace process right now. does it make any difference? >> well, i think it does make a difference. first of all, again, just to prove the point that diplomacy is difficult and things take a long time, the issue of jerusalem has been central to

the peace process for a very long time, but it has been seen as a final status issue, and i know when we were at camp david in the summer of 2000, there were all kinds of ideas about what could be done about jerusalem and who would have sovereignty and we even talked about divine sovereignty for the holy places and tried a number of different ways to look at the issue. it is in so many ways not only final, but central to the issue, and so for president trump to just kind of say that he was going to do something that undermines the overall approach to this, i think, one could say it's a surprise, but he had talked about it. but i think it really disrupts the issue, and we have no idea what the peace process is. and i think that there are real questions, and as you interviewed the palestinian authority, i think you saw how they are taking it, and also that it does provoke very

difficult feelings within the region itself. so i think it is not helpful in any shape or form, but it would be interesting to know whether there is any peace process that is out there in the heads of the trump administration, again, carried out by people who actually have some background on the issue. >> madeleine albright, thank you so much for joining us tonight. >> great to be with you, good luck. and that's it for our program tonight. thanks for watching this edition of "amanpour" on pbs. join us again next time. ♪ "amanpour" on pbs was made possible by the generous support of roslyn p. walter. you're watching pbs

>> funding for "third rail with ozy" is provided in part by: the corporation for public broadcasting. the pew charitable trusts. driven by the power of knowledge to solve today's mostwl challenging problems.ob and by contributions to this pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ ♪ ( cheers and applause ) >> watson: hey, everyone. now does america need some alone time? i'm carlose watson, editor in chief of the digital