Hi, everybody, welcome to Def Con 21.
Yeah!
I have already lost my voice.
Who else?
Anybody?
So we wanted to have an opening speaker this morning that
feel like they can handle the heat of the moment going on out there.
We invited a former fed up here.
He is used to dealing with North Korea special envoy
for the United States so I think he can deal with the heat.
Also Ambassador Joseph DeTrani was recently director
of nuclear non proliferation for the United States and
he is now president of INSA.
So I think it's really interesting to hear him talk today
about the convergence we are seeing between cyber and nuclear.
So with that everybody give Ambassador
a warm welcome.
(Applause).
AMBASSADOR JOSEPH DETRANI: Thank you.
It's an honor being here.
I have to be very honest, it's a bit intimidating to be here.
I'm impressed with all of the work you do,
and I met some of your colleagues yesterday.
Nico was nice enough to take me around, and
the work you do is very, very impressive.
I 've spent ten years working weapons of mass destruction issues a lot
in North Korea, but a number of other countries we look
at weapons of mass destruction, nuclear what was that, I'm sorry?
Nuclear, bio and chemical.
I thought today maybe I could talk a little about that and sort
of weave that into some of the work you are doing where you
have the expertise, and that's the cyber domain.
So please, bear with me, and then maybe we could open it
up for discussion or some questions.
And I'll be telling you a lot of what you know,
but let me start talking about weapons of mass destruction.
And I will preview that by giving you my sense that cyber
is a major national security threat to this country, to our citizens,
to our companies.
It's a threat that's growing in scope with direct impact to the economic,
domestic and defense interests of this nation.
Hactivists with politically or socially motivated agenda,
to criminals to state and non state actors who view
cyber intrusions and attacks as a means of economic advancement,
and we see a lot of that, through theft of intellectual property
and we have been reading a lot about that, or espionage or
in the most extreme case as a potential weapons
of mass destruction.
The cyber domain shows some of the same issues I've addressed
in my many years working weapons of mass destruction issues.
Let me talk a little bit about weapons of mass destruction.
The non proliferation treaty, NPT and
the International Atomic Energy Agency were established
to address nuclear issues with significant international
membership that interestingly and unfortunately doesn't include four
of the nine nuclear weapons states as members of the NPT.
The reality is that the number of nuclear weapon states could
increase significantly if North Korea retains
and enhances nuclear weapon capabilities and Iran pulls
the trigger and manufactures nuclear weapons which they could do
in a few months once the Supreme Leader Amini,
makes this decision which some say is inevitable despite the election
of Rohani as the new president.
These two events in my view, in my view, will insight
an international nuclear arms race with countries like Japan
and South Korea in East Asia and Saudi, Turkey
in the Middle East each seeking to attain their nuclear
weapons capability.
This is the nuclear threat the international community confronts
today in addition to the real threat, and I emphasize new threat
of nuclear terrorism.
Non state actors getting their hands on nuclear devices,
which we know they want.
That's why these organizations the non proliferation, IAEA,
the International Atomic Agency, the monitorings of these
at Iran's nuclear sites do such outstanding work.
North Korea pulled out of the NPT and they did that in 2013,
thus there are no IAEA inspectors looking at North Korea, looking
at their facility and any other undeclared facilities in North Korea.
Membership in the NPT and compliance
with the IAEA safeguards helps to insure that
a nuclear arms race does not materialize and that countries
like North Korea dismantles nuclear weapons.
As chairman promised and Iran renounces the pursuit
of nuclear weapons and overtly pursues the peaceful use
of nuclear energy while also insuring that those other nuclear weapons
states work hard to insure the security of their nuclear weapons,
the security of their nuclear weapons
because I mentioned nuclear terrorism, and eventually join the U.S.
in its goal in a world with no nuclear weapons.
The president has made that clear, the objective, and
he said most likely not in his lifetime.
Unfortunately there are no international organizations with the stature
and effect of the NPT and IAEA to oversee the cybersecurity.
Additionally the IAEA promotes peaceful use
of nuclear energy while trying to for military for nuclear purposes.
Regional and national forums have discussed the future
of internet governance, but there has been minimal progress.
Indeed the very definition of the cyber domain remains blurred,
but is not confined to the borders of any particular country.
As the Council of Foreign Relation's recent report
from the independent task force on cybersecurity noted addressing
the challenge of cyberspace is a global matter.
And, quote, the effects of domestic decisions spread far
beyond national borders and will affect not only users, companies,
non governmental organizations, and policymakers in other countries
but also the health, stability, resilience and integrity
of the global internet closed quotes.
International approaches to cybersecurity are critical.
Yet fraud with challenges of balancing free trade
with a global regulatory framework and protection
of intellectual property promoting national security including security
of critical infrastructure and protecting privacy where national standards
on this issue differ across the globe.
Let me talk about the U.S.
executive order on improving critical
infrastructure cybersecurity.
It's very explicit, and I think you are all familiar with the executive order,
explicit in stating that, quote, the cyber threat
to critical infrastructure continues to grow and represents one
of the most serious national security challenges we now confront.
The national and economic security of the United States depends
on reliable functioning of the nation's critical infrastructure
in the face of such threats.
It is the policy of the United States to enhance
the security and resilience of the nation's critical infrastructure
and to maintain a cyber environment that encourages
efficiency, innovation, and economic prosperity while
promoting safety, security, business confidentiality, privacy
and civil liberties.
We can achieve these goals through a partnership
with the owners and operators of critical infrastructure
to improve cybersecurity information sharing and collaboratively develop
and implement risk base that's a quote from the executive order.
You will have a chance to ask questions and we can have
a conversation.
In the global information age, computers and
the internet are integral to every aspect of society, education,
healthcare, economic growth.
No area is untouched.
Robert Macky who has been here writing for the Council
of Foreign Affairs and I quote, the tremendous gains
in economic productivity over the past two decades are
the direct result of the expanded use of internet
for communications collaboration, outsourcing, just
in time inventory management and the control of industrial processes.
Internationally the surge in global trade in both goods
and services that has taken place could not have happened without internet
as an enabling technology, closed quotes.
As with many peaceful and beneficial uses of nuclear power,
there obviously are many peaceful socioeconomic uses
of information technology.
I believe it would be a mistake, however, to think that cyber presently
can be used as a tool to counter real or potential nuclear threats
as some have argued.
They cite and its reported effectiveness in disabling a nuclear threat.
And I think many of you are familiar
with disabling a certain number of centrifuges.
Beyond the reach of any so-called cyber capability.
As stated in the aforementioned U.S.
executive order, cyber's true harmful capacity
in addition to stealing intellectual property
is its potential to attack a country's critical infrastructure,
its grid, water supply, aviation safety systems,
communications, financial system, things are all very familiar with.
It's a tax of this nature that makes cyber as potentially harmful as those
of biological and nuclear attacks, and, therefore, must be approached
with equal seriousness and focus on prevention.
Theoretically any country or person or organization can conduct such
a tax assuming knowledge and capacity.
That's not the case with nuclear.
Given the finite number of nuclear weapon states and
the likelihood that if they use, and I emphasize
if they use nuclear weapons against another country
they in turn would be attacked.
Mutual assured destruction.
Having nuclear weapons is a deterrent to nuclear attack.
If an event occurred one can assume who the cyber perpetrator was,
but the forensic fingerprint is less apparent, thus making such
an attack potentially more attractive to an aggressor.
I cite the recent attacks against Saudi Arabia, Georgia and
the United States.
Their impact was devastating.
That was not the case with nuclear as we mentioned and
for that very reason more must be done to insure that cyber technology
is not used for those purposes.
The leverages for the international community
and respective governments in addition
to using cyber more effectively for socioeconomic purposes
to help create firewalls necessary to stop cyber attack or
for attacking a country's critical infrastructure.
While also addressing the international challenge
of agreements on policies that protect free trade
and international governance of the internet.
This is the challenge and responsibility confronting
the international community.
Moreover cyber technology generically can be used to get countries
and non state actives from establishing and sustaining illicit
programs while each state doctrinally is studying the role of cyber
for military conflict.
In my view it requires international organizations that oversee, manage
and help control the use of cyber, organizations that not only monitor
the use of cyber, but encourage the peaceful use
of cyber and permit and aid other countries as we do in the nuclear field,
other countries to benefit from these technological advances.
In addition, the need for an international cyberware treaty,
as was made for chemical weapons
after we realized the terrible damage that it caused
in World War I, I believe the nuclear issue requires
enhanced focus.
I will go back to the nuclear issue.
This is my area of focus, insuring that North Korea gives
up nuclear weapons and Iran unequivocally renounces
pursuit after nuclear weapons.
This is the progress U.S.
and Russia are making with new start, bringing down the number to 1550.
The president spoke about bringing it down to 1,000.
We will put the international community
on the road towards a world with no nuclear weapons.
Robert Oppenheimer understood the need to move
in this direction when he observed that the first detonation
of a nuclear device on July 16th, 1945, citing Hindu scripture that, quote,
I am become death, destroyer of the world.
We have the opportunity and obligation to move in a different direction, not
to destroy the world, but to enhance it.
Most of you are experts in the field of information technology.
You understand the cyber domain.
You understand its beneficial impact on all of our lives.
You also understand the harm it can cause
if used improperly.
Indeed we look to you to develop better tools
and help establish policies, and I emphasize this, policies
to fortify and protect networks.
We look to you to develop more secure systems,
to help discover terrorist plots, to uncover human trafficking,
corruption in WMD programs.
We look to you to inspire others to organize and enlist good hackers
to help combat the sinister hackers who steal
intellectual property, disrupt networks, interfere with communications,
banking and critical infrastructure.
Our private and public sectors need your help, need your expertise
to serve society.
Using technology wisely has always been the measure
of an enlightened society.
The security of our nation needs you, the good hackers of Def Con.
I will end on that and maybe we can open it
to discussions or questions or wherever you want to go.
Thanks.
(Applause).
Please, sir.
I'm sorry, we have a question here.
(Speaking off mic).
Do we want to take this or do you want to ask?
Do we want to take this question first?
Repeat the question.
No, you, you repeat the question.
I'm going to repeat the question.
(Applause).
Monitoring by the government could be a tool
of repression, and the assurances necessary
to assure that the government is not doing, I assume that's
the question, it is not doing that?
Let me tell you I have been working WMD for ten years, ten years.
I have been working North Korea, I have been working a lot
of other issues.
What about Iraq?
I have been working a lot of other issues if it relates
to weapons of mass destruction.
I can tell you this, if you want to get to what we have been talking
about with the Snowden disclosures and so forth my exposure to that
is what you have been exposed to is that those programs,
those programs were authorized by the three branches of government.
Those programs, the three branches of government provided oversight
of those programs and those programs were established post 9/11 when we
saw the devastation of 9/11 and when we saw where
the terrorists were coming and what their intent was.
So you have the three branches of government authorizing
and overseeing it.
That's what it was.
And they have been effective according to the record.
The fact of the matter is a decision has been made
to make this more overt and more of a discussion.
I don't pretend to be an expert or have the knowledge you have,
but I think you have to have an open mind if there is a discussion,
participate in that discussion in a meaningful way.
Listen to let me finish my statement.
Do it in a meaningful way.
Listen to both sides of it.
Listen to what the thread is.
Listen to what they are doing because everything I have heard,
they are not getting into anyone's mail, they are not reading anything,
they are not touching any U.S.
persons, this is not directed at U.S.
citizens, this is looking at foreign terrorist threats
to the country.
Look at the facts and then draw your own conclusions, but there
will be a discussion on them.
How do we know?
You have access to the media.
The media said there will be more of a discussion.
No, what I'm talking about, being there are no the question
is putting up firewalls, when I say putting up firewalls,
how do we protect, because the internet has no borders.
It's global.
How do companies protect their intellectual property?
How do governments protect their critical infrastructure?
Putting up firewalls, looking at securing networks,
doing what's necessary to insure that we are protecting our
intellectual property, we are protecting our
critical infrastructure.
No, no, no, you misunderstood, I was talking about I'm talking
about I'm talking about international organizations.
I mentioned the IAEA, that's an international organization, NPT
is an international organization.
That's what I'm talking about, creating organizations that
oversee this.
This is not a nation issue, it's not country specific issue.
This is a global and international issue.
Creating international organizations that will do exactly that
because of the concerns you have.
And there is valid concerns, both of your questions are very valid.
Sir?
Thanks.
(Speaking off mic).
That's very good.
The question, the question from the gentleman
is the policy that's being made by individuals that don't really
understand the impact and the consequences
for making that policy and indeed inhibiting
and possibly persecuting individuals that want to move forward on that.
Let me just say, that's why you all can make a difference.
You have the expertise.
And you are not all old white men.
I look around.
You could make the difference.
You can get involved.
You can have that impact.
Now, you can have that impact also with your representatives,
because this is a representative government, right,
it's' republic.
Make your impact with your representatives
and get involved in the issues.
I can't emphasize that enough.
Okay.
Guys, we have a Microphone to use for Q and A.
So if you could form a line over here.
(Speaking off mic).
Can I ask a favor of you, if you would be kind enough, sir,
to come up and use the mic, I think the lady is absolutely right,
so everybody can hear it.
Sorry, I was going to say that I appreciate your response.
The only thing I was going to say was that
in the security research division that we have right now, the way it is,
the way things are right now, if someone uncovers a security flaw,
they have to watch for government prosecution
for being sued by, you know, Cisco or some other company
because they are uncovering a flaw and they are making public knowledge
of a security issue, and it's not really in their best interest to, like you said,
to participate in that theater because they are basically opening
themselves up to attack.
Yes, look, the only thing I can say in that and I don't pretend to be
an expert, this is really, cyber domain is not my area, but my sense
of working issues that somewhat are related because I see cyber
as being potentially a weapons of mass destruction when you look
at the consequences and the need to get ahold in a global sense.
That's why I cite the IAEA, I cite the NPT.
This is something we have to come together on and we have
to do it quickly.
Further to your question, that's exactly it.
I mean, so that when we find, the individuals find fault, they look
at networks, they shouldn't be intimidated by that.
They should be rewarded for doing that, to protect intellectual property,
to protect infrastructure and so forth.
That's all positive.
I think what you are saying makes sense and I think working as,
not necessarily as a team, but certainly as a team,
but galvanizing that, and look what you have here
at Def Con.
Yesterday you had black hat.
The whole cyber issue has a lot of traction, this is the time
to come together on that, working with representatives, getting involved,
getting involved with let me say and I know this sounds trite,
but getting the jobs with the private sector many
of you are doing, getting jobs with the government,
getting very much involved, so you become the new culture.
And it's not just as you described, the old white men making these
decisions and so forth.
You become and you move us in this new domain which has
significant consequences.
So I think your questions are very good.
Thank you.
So I'm not really sure why you are here because you don't,
and you said you are not an expert on anything I'm sorry,
I didn't hear you.
I'm not really sure why you are here, but since you are here
and talking about weapons of mass destruction I'm here
because I was invited.
The point being we just spent ten years killing 100,000 people in Iraq
for weapons of mass destruction which appears
to be your expertise.
I'd like your comments on the lies that got us
into that where people like you came
out with the propaganda that there were weapons
of mass destruction everywhere, that they were imminent to be used,
that they weren't there, and that all of that government propaganda
is lies and why shouldn't we consider that what you are saying now is lies?
(Applause).
Because I don't think the feds tell the truth and I think we should fuck
the feds.
Let me ask you a question.
You could assume whatever you want.
I'm listening, I'm not assuming.
You can assume whatever you want.
Let me finish.
You can assume whatever you want, but if you want to be blinded
to what's happening, you want to be blinded to the terrorism threat.
9/11 was not a reality.
Was 9/11 caused by weapons of mass destruction?
We want to be blinded.
We will listen to you.
Why did we go to Iraq and kill those people?
The government told us because it was because of weapons
of mass destruction.
We have a 50% death rate and a 30% Let me just say something.
In my presentation this morning, I was not talking about Iraq.
That's what we want to talk about it, weapons of mass destruction.
The fact of the matter is and I'm not going back
to the history on this because I think the record
is very clear that Saddam did not have weapons at that time and
the government has said that clearly.
The fact is when you go back to the first Gulf War,
when you go back to what Saddam was doing,
when you go back to plans, to the scientists working on it,
Saddam was pursuing it years before that.
At the moment, at that time, no.
And I think the record is clear on that.
The fact of the matter is Syria with chemical weapons.
It should not blind you to the fact that Iran goes forward
with nuclear weapons.
It shouldn't blind you to the fact that terrorist organizations
are trying to get their hands on the material.
And the reality that the government is lying
about those things as well.
The terrorists may be there and the government is lying to cover it up.
You can believe what you want, but I can tell you we have a lot
of dedicated Americans working these issues who care about the safety
of American people, care about the safety of you and all of us
in this room and spend time doing that because we know what the threat
is and we are trying to communicate that.
If you don't want to hear that, if you want to be oblivious to it,
that's your business.
There are a lot of people putting their lives
on the line to protect all of us in this room.
(Applause).
That's not what you are doing.
(Applause).
Thank you for being here.
I think this is a question you don't need to answer, but who participated
in creating the speech?
I'm sorry?
Who participated in creating the speech?
What speech?
Like the one you just gave.
I did.
Only you?
Only me.
Okay.
Thank you.
You mentioned Iran at the beginning of your speech
and said they were months away from creating a nuclear weapon.
Considering the fact we have heard that
in the last 30 years, particularly the last 8 years why should we believe
you now when you have been so wrong in the past?
Let me ask you to do this.
I know you search the internet.
Go onto the board of governors' report, the Director General of the IAEA,
every three months he does a report to the board of directors.
Go to the May 22nd, 2013 and see what the IAEA,
independent organization says about Iran's program,
about the 17,000 subterfuges, the sophistication about the 180,
now 190 kilograms of uranium being enriched to purity.
Six tons, six tons of uranium enriched to 5% purity.
We are talking about five to six weapons.
Talk about what the IAE it's not what the U.S.
government is saying, it's what the IAE is saying, read that report
and the ones that preceded it and the one coming out in a few weeks
and draw your own conclusions.
We have all of these reports going back years
and years.
Every year there is a scary report about Iran developing nuclear weapons.
We are not talking developing, we are saying they have
a capability and if they make a decision, they could do that within months.
Hopefully they don't make that decision because it will open up some suspect,
I suspect as a person that that would open
up the Middle East.
I don't think countries are going to sit there when you look
at the Sunni Shiite, when you look at Iran's support to Hezbollah,
when you look at what's going on in Syria.
That would be a concern if you are sitting in Israel.
Iran with nuclear weapons is an existential threat.
I'm sure Iran containing weapons is a more greater existential threat.
Sir, just read the you are making conclusions.
I'm making my own assessments, you make your own assessment.
Have you read the board of directors' report?
I have not.
Have you read any of the report?
As soon as even if he accepts it though, he is saying
he trusts over states last.
So even if he accepts that they are doing it.
Accepts they are doing what?
Accepts that Iran is making those.
I'm not following your logic.
I'm sorry.
I give up.
Okay.
I think the way that you are approaching
the cyber issue is wrong headed, and misses the point.
So we don't need an international I think I can tell you
talk about protecting our nation's grid and so on.
If our nation had a power grid that was robust,
you wouldn't need firewalls protecting other people or protecting us
from other people.
We need to make what we have secure, and then this talk about monitoring
the world's cyber, which is pretty ridiculous
because it can't be seen.
I mean, the things that you are talking about might work when people have
to haul weapons around the world, might work when
they are actual problems like you could drop a bomb on this,
but if the grid is robust, the grid will be robust even
if people are poking at it.
What we need to do to be secure is to be secure in and of ourselves
and stop playing this game like we can control the world,
like we can see cyber and it's some sort of weapon we can stop.
It will never work.
(Applause).
Well, let me just say, if we could make our systems
as robust as you just described, whether it's our corporations that are
losing intellectual property, and we just saw that in South Korea.
We saw it in the United States, in Saudi.
If these companies can insure that their systems are secure so that these bad
hackers can't get into them or individuals or governments can't do
that, that is fine.
If we could come up with the grids that are impenetrable,
that's our challenge to do that.
The fact of the matter is we see vulnerability.
We, internationally, I'm not talking
about any particular country.
Saudi Arabia, South Korea is not the United States.
These countries are being affected, and so forth.
So if we can collaborate, that's what I'm talking about.
That's what the UN is about.
You can collaborate on offering people technologies that
they can use to secure their own systems,
but there is Then we need to move forward on that.
This is what I'm trying to say to you, the words that you are using to us,
we recognize to be counterproductive.
You want to put a firewall around this to help these people.
There are things we could do to help these companies to be secure.
That's your challenge.
Now, you are interrupting me.
I'm trying to say to you that the words you are using
to us are ones that are guaranteed to make this conversation less
effective, and we would be willing, probably, in a lot of ways to help,
but the old world terms of firewalls, and monitoring, they just don't apply.
If you want to know what would work, then ask us how you should be set up.
Don't talk to us about working like the IAEA.
Ask us how.
Well, let me posit this to you, let me posit this to you.
I'm giving you my experience working weapons of mass destruction.
Obviously you are the expert on cyber technology,
information technology.
Move forward with what you just proposed.
No, let me finish.
Move forward with what you just proposed so that
the South Koreas, the Georgias, the Saudi Arabias, the United States,
our companies go out and work with these companies and do it.
I know many of you are doing it.
That's the challenge and that's the challenge I mentioned to you and
all of us a few minutes ago.
You, the experts, go out and do what you are talking about.
I didn't want to offend you, but I don't use your name terminology
because you are the expert in the area of cyber,
information technology.
I don't pretend to be.
I'm using terminology I'm comfortable.
If it's not applicable in your area, I think it's the intent, it's not the words.
No, the intent I say yes, you say no.
We disagree.
Maybe I could help because I see that your intent,
I get that you want to do these things, but the things that you are saying are
sort of incorrect for the area, and if you just want
to say my intents are good, I mean it from this,
I have got this experience, then, okay.
But when you put it that way, it's not going to work as well.
So you mentioned that we should use skills to participate more
and use our knowledge to help educate our representatives,
et cetera.
I know I have done a lot of lobbying on things
like SOPA and things like that.
The corporate interests have largely captured our representatives.
What do you feel about the role of Hactivism and using our role
in a modern democracy?
I'm not hearing the end of your sentence.
How do you feel about the role of hactivism or using our roles
to influence behaviors, et cetera, as opposed to working
through the traditional channels of government?
Many of you I'm sure are working
with the private sector.
Cyber is one of the major issues, because we are talking
about intellectual properties and billions of dollars, the billions
of dollars that are being stolen from the corporate sector, not only
in the United States, obviously, but globally, internationally,
so getting involved with these companies
to protect that, yes.
I don't feel like you really answered the question,
but, are you familiar with a group called Anonymous?
I'm sorry?
Basically my question comes down to it seems like working
through the corporate structure, we are only reinforcing
a structure that's working against I heard you said anonymous
and I get your question.
I'm talking about intellectual property.
I'm talking about the many companies I think some
of you are involved with that are losing
intellectual property.
But not only the United States globally, we are talking billions of dollars.
We are talking about that.
That's one aspect to it.
The other aspects you mentioned anonymous there.
Go forward, do what you have to do.
I'm talking about intellectual property.
I'm talking about critical infrastructure.
That's my focus.
Your focuses are different.
That's fine.
In your opinion, how has the NPT, non proliferation regime then impacted,
I guess how much by regularizing civil nuclear relations
with India?
Well, the NPT, we would like countries to be part of the NPT
and there are four countries not members of the NPT.
Yes.
And that's unfortunate.
We would like to see all countries become members
because of safeguards and protocols.
So non member in the NPT because it affected the IEA and
the monitoring aspects of negative development.
We would like countries to be part of the NPT.
So my question, is the act of the United States regularizing our
relationship with India's civil nuclear regime actually
working against the NPT?
That's a bifurcated issue because the U.S.
has decided there is a civilian program and
a military program in India.
And a decision was made by previous administration to deal
with India in a bifurcated way.
Okay.
I was just, it seems like it's giving up one of the big carrots that
the NPT has.
It's countries like you just cited, and that's where we are with that,
but we see India is a democracy, a country using civil nuclear programs
in a meaningful way, and that's the bifurcation.
Two things, the first one a shout out to Def Con
for closed captioning there.
I think that's fucking cool!
So, yea Def Con!
And then the second thing is, I guess I'm
a little perplexed I don't know why I'm shaking, because it seems that
in terms of resources that the government spends in terms
of dealing with cyber warfare, it's always through the lens
of state agents, that's the threat.
And it seems to me that there is billions lost every day
by people who are victims of cybercrime and that
the NSA's mandate, for instance, doesn't at all deal with that, and that
the government resources don't at all seem to address this.
Yet to me, and I may be wrong, but it seems to me that that
is proportionately in terms of its economic impact on the U.S.
and other western nations the much bigger threat.
Thanks.
Well, those are fair comments and we need to, you need
to get involved and all of us need to get involved.
It's a multidimensional threat.
I think you just cited that.
Ambassador, I'm wondering what do you think
the prospects are for restarting the six party talks around North Korea,
given that it seems most of the major players continue to fail
to recognize the importance of signing a permanent peace treaty?
JOSEPH DETRANI: I think it's important to get back
to negotiations with North Korea.
I think North Korea has indicated with the new government that
they are prepared to address the denuclearization issue.
It's not a question of non proliferation, it's a question of denuclearization.
They are prepared to look at and consider the 1st of September,
2005 joint statement that spoke to comprehensive denuclearization
in exchange for security assurances
and economic assistance.
So I think there is a positive.
The concern of immediately coming back
to the six party talks is how sincere, how sincere is North Korea
with this approach?
I think if North Korea continues to be sincere as they are saying
they are, and they are saying this to China and publicly now, and,
you know, cease and desist with more threats, attempts
to intimidate and missile launches, I think the sense is that
the negotiations will resume, and because we need
to be successful with North Korea, we need to be very, very successful,
I think we can accomplish that.
I absolutely agreed with that.
That's why I asked about the peace treaty in particular.
Maybe it's time for a fresh approach or different set of tries
because it seems like whatever has been tried
before hasn't worked.
JOSEPH DETRANI: Well, this is that's a very fair point.
This is exactly no one wants to go back to talks for the sake
of talks because as we have been talking North
Korea has gone from 6 to 12 nuclear weapons.
We believe they have uranium enrichment
programs fabricating.
We see missile launches and a satellite, the trajectory has gone the other way.
So what we want is not talks for the sake of talks,
but implementation of a program that will lead to success.
And my personal view is I think with the assistance, certainly
the pitch parties coming together, the five countries with North Korea
and China being very, very much involved with North Korea,
I think we will see progress.
Hi.
You compared cyber to chemical weapons and World War I.
What do you see as the parallels there?
JOSEPH DETRANI: No, I wasn't comparing.
What I'm saying is when we saw the devastation of biological weapons,
chemical weapons, the international community rose
up and said, my God, we have to sort of understand this and work together
a community, not countries, but as an international community
globally working together.
And that's why we have these international protocols on the bylaws
of weapons convention, the chemical and
the same thing with nuclear.
This is not a country specific issue.
It's a global international issue.
And I think we all admit, you know, you are the experts, again, cyber
is not a country specific issue.
It's a global issue.
I don't want to speak for people here, but I suspect
the response would be that there is simply too many non state actors
for a massive JOSEPH DETRANI: That's a fair point.
That's why it's a difficult issue.
It's a difficult issue.
It's a challenge.
Okay.
Peace.
JOSEPH DETRANI: Okay, any other positive comments?
(Laughter) Any other good questions?
Actually, no, we need to get the next speaker.
JOSEPH DETRANI: Good luck, and, look, use that energy,
use that expertise and help this government work
with the international community so that we do counter the potential threat,
and use it in a peaceful meaningful way which it is, so you are the experts,
so good luck to all of you.