2019.03.11.
3月3日にボルトン安全保障担当補佐官がCNN及びCBSのインタビューで行った発言の要注目箇所を紹介します。私が訳出したのは大まかなので、全文を末尾に掲載しておきます。
＜CNN＞
（質問）今回のサミットはアメリカよりも北朝鮮を助ける形で終わったのか。
（回答）ノー、間違いなくアメリカにとって成功だった。なぜならば、大統領はアメリカの利益を守り、防衛したからだ。
北朝鮮にとって、アメリカとビッグ・ディールを行う可能性があった。非常に明るい経済的未来の可能性と引き換えに完全な非核化を行うということだ。大統領はこのビッグ・ディールを行おうとした。彼はそれを強力にプッシュした。北朝鮮は大統領が彼らのために開けた扉を通ろうとしなかった。
したがって、今後起こることを見守るつもりだ。しかし、結果ということでいえば、大統領はこの外交を以前の政権とは違った形で行った。この問題に取り組んだ前の3つの政権は失敗した。だから彼は違ったルートを試したのだ。
金正恩自身先の会合で、合意に達するまでに多くの駅を通るだろうと述べた。今回（のサミット）はもう一つの駅だ。
（質問）北朝鮮が望んでいた米韓合同軍事演習（の停止）以外に新しいことは何もなかった。
（回答）大統領がシンガポールで決定したことと現在とでは、演習に関して何も実質的な違いはない。何か新しい決定がなされたということではない。大統領は昨年夏に演習についての決定を行い、それが今も続いているのだ。
アメリカがこのことから得るものは、北朝鮮が非核化の用意があるならば北朝鮮の開放の可能性があるということを再び示しているということだ。我々は、何が起こったかについて北朝鮮に評価させようとしている。我々は、経済制裁の最大限の圧力キャンペーンが続くことを確保する方法について考えている。なぜならば、北朝鮮をテーブルに着かせたのは制裁だからだ。
（質問）大統領が何か新しいことを試みることに渋々なものはいない。しかし、サミットは何もなかった。
（回答）あなたは伝統的外交の観点で話している。ディールがないのはいかにダメダメだという観点だ。大統領は北朝鮮に彼らが得ることができる最善のディールを提供した。ノー・ディールはバッド・ディールよりも良い。だから、北朝鮮の非核化を達成しようとした過去3代の政権が失敗したことに鑑み、大統領は北朝鮮外交の中身を変えさせようと決定したのだ。
彼はそれをやってみる価値があると考えたのは明らかだ。我々は次に何が起こるかを見守る。
（質問）北朝鮮はサミットで何かを得た。彼らは国際的プロパガンダ外交で大きな勝利を得た。しかし、アメリカが得たものは何もない。何かを達成できるという具体的な証左がなくても、第3回サミットを大統領に勧めるつもりか。
（回答）大統領は金正恩が会合で何かを得たという意見にはまったく賛成しない。それは大統領の意見ではない。
第3回サミットに関しては、ハノイでの記者会見で何も予定されていないと述べた。キーとなるディシジョン・メーカーは金正恩だ。彼は大統領から直接に彼が受け取ることができるビッグ・ディールについて聞いた。彼は開いている扉を通ることができるのだ。我々としては彼がどんな決定を行うか見守る。
＜CBS＞
（質問）大統領はどうしてブレークスルーを交渉できなかったのか。
（回答）サミットが失敗だったとは考えていない。大統領がアメリカの国益を守り、促進したという定義に基づいて成功だったと考える。サミットについては集中的な準備があった。大統領と金正恩との間での集中的議論におけるイッシューは北朝鮮が「ビッグ・ディール」と大統領が名付けたものを受け入れる用意があるかということだった。つまり、大統領が金正恩に手渡した定義のもとでの完全な非核化を行い、巨大な経済的将来の可能性を手に入れるか、それとも我々にとって受け入れることができないそれ以下の何かを試みるのかということだった。大統領は自分の意見を堅持した。彼は金正恩との関係を深めた。アメリカの国益が守られたのだから失敗だったとはまったく見ていない。
（質問）北朝鮮はアメリカが定義する非核化に同意しなかった。
（回答）我々は北朝鮮がアメリカと合意することを期待している。
（質問）北朝鮮が具体的に提案したのは寧辺核施設場の解体だったということだが。アメリカはカウンター・オファを行ったのか。
（回答）カウンター・オファはシンガポールでの第1回サミット当時からあった。北朝鮮が完全な非核化（弾道ミサイル計画及び化学生物兵器計画を含む）にコミットすれば、経済発展の可能性があるということだ。
（質問）しかしそれは北朝鮮がテーブルにのせたものではない。北朝鮮は狭い定義をテーブルにのせた。
（回答）北朝鮮が示した譲歩は極めて限られたものだ。つまり、老朽化した原子炉とウラン濃縮及びプルトニウム再処理の何パーセントについての寧辺核施設だ。その見返りとして彼らは制裁の大幅な解除を要求した。
（質問）だからカウンター・オファはなかったということだ。
（回答）我々のカウンター・オファは、大統領がビッグ・ディールを採るように金正恩に対して説得力ある能力を行使したというところにある。しかし彼らはそうしようとしなかった。
（質問）大統領が極端にして妥協なき立場を主張したのは何故か。あなたは2002年にも北朝鮮と交渉した。同じパターンの繰り返しか。
（回答）大統領が北朝鮮に明確にした違いは、非核化という戦略的決定を行えば未来があるということだ。彼らが前にしたのは非核化の約束をして、見返りに経済的利益を得た後に取引を破るということだ。大統領が彼らにさせようとしたのは、全体として彼らにとって何が可能かということを見つめるということだった。大統領は今でもそれが可能だと楽観している。金正恩自身も先の会談で、この取引を達成するまでには多くの駅を通過することになると述べた。ハノイ会合はそうした駅の一つだ。だから大統領は話を続ける用意がある。
（質問）北朝鮮は提案してくると思うか。
（回答）彼らが何をするかは分からない。大統領は、北朝鮮が戻ってくることを期待すると言った。北朝鮮を交渉の場に引き出した経済制裁を続けるつもりだ。次に何が起こるかは見てみよう。
（質問）外交の窓はここで閉じようとしているのか。自由回答のタイムラインのようだが。
（回答）大統領は扉を開けておいた。北朝鮮は通ることができる。彼ら次第だ。
（質問）昨年7月にあなたは計画しているのは北朝鮮の核関連施設を解体し、大量破壊兵器を1年以内に引き渡させることだと述べた。
（回答）政権内部ではどれぐらい時間がかかるかについて議論があった。少数の例外を除けば1年以内に完了できるというのが我々の判断だった。
（質問）この提案には期限はないのか。
（回答）期限はない。大統領は下のレベルで交渉を続ける用意もあるし、適当であれば金正恩と話す用意もある。
（質問）大統領がハノイに行く前に、北朝鮮は寧辺核施設以上は何も認めないだろうということを認識していたのか。
（回答）金正恩の口から出てくるまでは分からない。
（質問）そのための基礎的な仕事をするのが外交官の仕事だろう。大統領が失敗を後にすることがないように。
（回答）大統領は失敗を後にして去ったのではない。ノー・ディールよりもバッド・ディールの方がマシだと言うのでなければ、会談は成功だった。
（質問）大統領をハノイに送って可能性をテストしたということか。
（回答）ノー、ノー、ノー。我々は正直分からなかったのだ。こういう状況においては、相手側が追加的譲歩を行うということは不思議ではない。大統領が過去の政権の過ちは繰り返さないと繰り返し述べたように、その点を北朝鮮にははっきりさせた。オバマがイランの核取引でした過ちはしない。大統領自身が金正恩に渡したペーパーで示した広義の非核化を我々は要求している。
（質問）非常に違ったアプローチだが、成功率はこれまでと違いがなかった。
（回答）過去の成功率はゼロだった。演繹的に進める方が帰納的に進めるよりも意味があるという議論がある。我々は2回会合を持った。次に何が起こるか見てみよう。
（質問）（ハノイ公式訪問、トランプと対等に渡り合ったことなどで）金正恩はもはや異端者ではないようだ。彼は何かを得たのでは？
（回答）それは大統領の見解ではない。
（質問）あなたはそれを信じているのか。
（回答）大統領の見解は何も与えていないということだ。私の見解ではなく大統領の見解が重要なのだ。私は安全保障のアドバイザーであり、国家安全保障の政策決定者ではない。
（質問）あなたの見解は過去の記録に残されている。
（回答）今の私の仕事は大統領を助け、アドバイスを与えることだ。決定は彼が行う。
（質問）はっきりさせたいが、トランプ政権は政権交代をもはや追求しないということか。
（回答）政権の立場は北朝鮮の非核化であり、我々はそれを追求している。
（質問）金正恩はそれを行うことができるとまだ信じているのか。
（回答）あの国の権威ある支配者は彼であり、彼が非核化するという戦略的決定を行うのであれば、それが起こると思う。
ボルトン発言原文
CNN Interview With U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton
Aired March 3, 2019 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TAPPER: Joining us now, President Trump's national security adviser, Ambassador John Bolton.
Ambassador Bolton, thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it.
JOHN BOLTON, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Glad to be with you.
TAPPER: So, it seems as though President Trump doesn't have anything new to show for the summit.
Kim Jong-un got a second face-to-face with the American president, building his clout on an international stage. Now we're told South Korea and the U.S. are scaling back major joint military exercises.
Did this summit end up helping North Korea more than the United States?
BOLTON: No, I think it was unquestionably a success for the United States, because the president protected, defended American interests.
The possibility was there for North Korea to make a big deal with us, to do complete denuclearization, in exchange for the potential for a very bright economic future. The president wanted to make that big deal. He pushed very hard for it. The North Koreans were not willing to walk through -- through the door that he opened for them.
So, now we will see what happens. But, in terms of the outcome, the president has conducted this diplomacy different from prior administrations. All three prior administrations that addressed this question failed. So he's trying a different route.
Kim Jong-un himself said at the last meeting, we're going to go through many stations before we reach agreement. This is just one more station.
TAPPER: But there's no -- nothing new on the table. There's nothing new that's been achieved, right, except for now there's these major joint military exercises with South Korea, which is what the North Korea want -- North Koreans want. That's achieved for them.
What does -- what did the U.S. get?
BOLTON: You know, I don't -- I don't see that there's any real difference between -- on the exercise point between what the president decided in Singapore and now. It's not like some new decision has been made. The president made the decision on the exercises back in the summer of last year, and those continue.
I think what the United States gets from this is, we show again the potential for the opening of North Korea, if they are prepared to denuclearize. We will let the North Koreans evaluate what happened. We are going to take a look at ways of making sure that our maximum pressure campaign of economic sanctions continues, because, after all, it's the sanctions that brought North Korea to the table in the first place.
TAPPER: Well, nobody begrudges the president for trying something new. Nobody begrudges the president for trying...
BOLTON: I think some do begrudge him that, yes.
TAPPER: OK. Nobody reasonable begrudges the president for trying something new or for trying to achieve peace. But nothing came of the summit, other than further demonstrations that the United States wants peace, wants denuclearization.
Would you recommend a third summit without a tangible deliverable, as it's called, something on the table that the United States knows will be achieved?
BOLTON: Well, you're -- you're speaking in the -- in the terms of conventional diplomacy that, my goodness, there's no deal, how horrible.
I would say it the other way. If -- if you can't get a good deal -- and the president offered North Korea the best deal it could possibly get -- no deal is better than a bad deal. So the president's decided to shake things up in North Korean diplomacy, given the failure of the last three administrations to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea.
He obviously thinks it's -- it's worth trying. We will see now what comes next.
TAPPER: Well, I agree, obviously, that a bad deal is worse than no deal.
BOLTON: Not everybody agrees with that proposition, by the way.
TAPPER: But the North Koreans got something out of this. They got a big international propaganda victory. And I don't see any -- anything that the United States achieved.
And I wonder, without a concrete demonstration that something would be able to be achieved, would you recommend to the president a third summit?
BOLTON: Look, the president simply doesn't agree with the idea that Kim gets something out of these meetings. Others disagree with that. That's not the president's view.
No, would he want a third summit? He said in his press conference in Hanoi none has been scheduled. Would he want another one without some manifestation the North was going to move? That -- that will remain to be seen.
The key decision-maker is Kim Jong-un. He's heard it directly from the president, the big deal that he could accept. He could walk through that open door. We will wait and see what his decision is.
TAPPER: I want to play what President Trump said about Kim Jong-un and the brutal mistreatment of the American college student Otto Warmbier, who was arrested in North Korea and returned to the United States in a coma, and he subsequently died. Take a listen.
TRUMP: I don't believe that he would have allowed that to happen. He tells me that he didn't know about it, and I will take him at his word.
TAPPER: He's going to take Kim Jong-un at his word that he didn't know about it.
The Warmbier family put out a statement. They disagree. They say Kim Jong-un is responsible. Are they wrong?
BOLTON: Look, the president made it very clear he considers what happened to Otto Warmbier an act of brutality that's completely unacceptable to the American side.
I have heard him before the summit itself, before the press conference, talk about how deeply he cared about Otto Warmbier and his family.
The fact is, the best thing North Korea could do right now would be to give us a full accounting of what happened and who was responsible for it.
TAPPER: Do you take Kim Jong-un at his word?
BOLTON: The president takes him at his word.
TAPPER: No, I know he does, but what about you?
BOLTON: My opinion doesn't matter. My opinion is that...
TAPPER: You're the national security adviser to the president.
BOLTON: Right. I'm not...
TAPPER: Your opinion matters quite a bit.
BOLTON: I am not the national security decision-maker. That's his view.
TAPPER: Well, we saw Otto Warmbier in North Korean custody after his arrest at a press conference, February 29, 2016. There he is. He was alert. He was talking. He was physically OK.
So whatever happened to Otto Warmbier clearly happened after he entered North Korean custody, after Kim Jong-un knew that he was in North Korean custody.
Do you believe that somebody in the prison system in North Korea just went rogue and did something to Otto Warmbier, or do your years of knowing North Korea, and knowing the politics there, tell you that, whatever happened to Otto Warmbier, Kim Jong-un had to have known about it, because that's how that country is run?
BOLTON: Listen, nothing that happens in North Korea surprises me.
But I do think what North Korea would benefit from most is a full description of what happened, a full accounting.
TAPPER: I don't know one expert on North Korea who thinks that anything could have happened to Otto Warmbier without Kim Jong-un knowing about it ahead of time.
Do you disagree?
BOLTON: Good for them.
TAPPER: But what about you? You're a North Korea...
BOLTON: I -- look, you know, people in the media seem to have the impression that administration officials kind of comment from the distance, as if I were a FOX News contributor, as I used to be. TAPPER: Used to be.
BOLTON: I don't do that anymore. I give my advice to the president. I give my opinions to the president. He makes up his own mind. That's why he's president.
TAPPER: So there is this context of President Trump taking the word of Kim Jong-un.
In the past, in Helsinki, he said he believed Vladimir Putin's denials of election interference over that of U.S. intelligence agencies. He has cited Crown Prince MBS' denials of his involvement in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who lived in the United States.
Why does the president say publicly that he's willing to side with dictators over Americans?
BOLTON: He's not saying he's siding with dictators over Americans.
TAPPER: He believes them.
BOLTON: He has -- he has expressed his opinion about what they have said on these various points. And let's -- let's just take Khashoggi as another example. As with what I just said on North Korea, the administration position expressed by the president and every other official who has addressed it is, we want a full accounting from the Saudis.
So I think that's entirely consistent with finding out, getting to the bottom of what happened.
TAPPER: I want to turn to another subject.
"The New York Times" reported this week that President Trump overruled career intelligence officials in order to give his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner a top security clearance.
President Trump said just last month he didn't get involved. Is the president telling the American people the truth?
BOLTON: Look, I have no idea what the -- what the story is on the security clearances involved there. So you will have to -- you will have to ask the president. He's given his opinion on it.
TAPPER: Let's turn to some other events around the world.
The United States has been negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan, as you know, trying to broker a peace agreement that would ultimately, perhaps, end up with a withdrawal of all 14,000 U.S. troops and service members who are there.
Take a listen to the third-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives -- I think you know her -- Congresswoman Liz Cheney, in my interview with her last month. REP. LIZ CHENEY (D), WYOMING: The Taliban will not live up to any negotiated deal that we set with them. The notion that we're somehow going to have a negotiated deal with the Taliban, that we can take their word that they won't allow al Qaeda to have safe havens again, is, in my view, irresponsible. TAPPER: Why can the Taliban be trusted to hold up their end of any sort of negotiation?
BOLTON: Well, I don't trust them just as a matter of faith. They will uphold it if it's in their interest to uphold it.
What the president has decided is that it's going to be important to try and keep a counterterrorism presence in Afghanistan. That's a central part of these discussions. I can tell you that senior national security officials have been discussing this issue and how to try and bring it about, how to support the diplomacy that follow our counterterrorism objectives continuously.
We will be doing some of more it this week. It's a very important point. We're putting a lot of energy in it. But there's no blind trust in the Taliban in this administration. That's for sure.
TAPPER: Let's turn to another terrorist group.
On Thursday, President Trump declared victory over ISIS in Syria, saying -- quote -- "We just took over 100 percent of the land controlled by ISIS there."
Yesterday, there was still heavy fighting there. As you know, the president backtracked a bit to say 100 percent of ISIS land will be taken by today.
Has that happened yet? Has ISIS been defeated in 100 percent of the land in Syria?
BOLTON: I don't know, but let's be clear.
We're talking about an area roughly the size of Central Park in New York. And there -- the -- the negotiations have been under way to let some noncombatants out. Some of the ISIS fighters want to visit Allah. That's what they're there to do.
And I think the Syrian opposition is about to accommodate them. But we're talking about an insignificant piece of real estate here, and it will happen very, very soon.
TAPPER: Let's turn to South America.
You tweeted on Friday about Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro -- quote -- "Those who continue to support a dictator that violates human rights and steals from the starving should not be allowed to walk around with impunity" -- unquote.
Just as a matter of course -- and this didn't start with the Trump administration -- the United States supports any number of dictators who violate human rights, including the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE.
Should those who support those dictators not be allowed to walk around with impunity?
BOLTON: You know, I -- I have put out roughly 150 tweets on Venezuela. This is a new experiment in public diplomacy.
The fact is that we're trying to rally support for the peaceful transition of power from Maduro to Juan Guaido, whom we recognize as president. And I think since most of my tweets also come out in Spanish, because we want to reach the Latin American audience in particular, that a lot of people, especially on the political left, in the hemisphere and around the world, now understand that the failed experiment of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro needs to end.
So, I would like to see as broad a coalition as we can put together to replace Maduro, to replace the whole corrupt regime. That's what we're trying to do.
TAPPER: Well, certainly, Maduro is nobody that I would defend in any way.
BOLTON: Well, that's good to hear.
TAPPER: But do you not see that the United States' support for other brutal dictators around the world undermines the credibility of the argument you're making?
BOLTON: No, I don't think it does. I think it's separate. And I think, look, in this administration, we're not afraid to use the phrase Monroe Doctrine. This is a country in our hemisphere. It's been the objective of American presidents going back to Ronald Reagan to have a completely democratic hemisphere.
I mentioned back in -- at the end of last year that we're looking very much at the troika of tyranny, including Cuba, Nicaragua, as well as Maduro. Part of the problem in Venezuela is the heavy Cuban presence, 20,000 to 25,000 Cuban security officials, by reports that have been in the public.
This is the sort of thing that we find unacceptable. And that's why we're pursuing these policies.
TAPPER: I only have a few more seconds, but I want to ask you about Venezuela.
Republican Senator Marco Rubio is sponsoring legislation to offer TPS status, temporary protected status, to Venezuelans in the U.S. who are at risk of being deported back to the political turmoil, and worse, in Venezuela.
Would you support that?
BOLTON: Well, we will have to take a look at that. Our objective is to have Juan Guaido become the interim president, so we can get new presidential elections. And if that were to happen, we wouldn't need to grant TPS status.
So, I would rather focus on getting the transformation in Venezuela and getting them back on the road to stability.
TAPPER: I do want to ask you. "The New York Times" has reported that a dual American and Saudi citizen, Walid Fitaihi, told a friend he was in Saudi Arabia and not treated well after being arrested in November 2017.
The Saudis called it a crackdown on corruption. He's in prison now, with no charges, no trial.
What do you know about this? What is the U.S. trying to do to secure his release?
BOLTON: Well, as of this moment, my understanding is we have had what's called consular access, meaning American diplomats in Saudi Arabia have visited with him.
Beyond that, we don't really have any additional information at this point.
TAPPER: Ambassador Bolton, thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it.
BOLTON: Glad to be with you.
CBS News March 3, 2019, 8:27 AM
Transcript: National security adviser John Bolton on "Face the Nation," March 3, 2019
The following is a transcript of an interview with White House national security adviser John Bolton that aired Sunday, March 3, 2019, on "Face the Nation."
• Bolton: Trump "ready to keep talking" to North Korea after failed summit
________________________________________
MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning and welcome to "Face the Nation." We begin today with President Trump's national security adviser Ambassador John Bolton. Good to have you here.
AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON: Glad to be with you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We had different versions of the story as to why this summit failed to produce any results. Why was the president unable to negotiate a breakthrough?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well I don't consider the summit a failure. I consider it a success defined as the president protecting and advancing American national interest. There was extensive preparation for this meeting. Extensive discussions between the president and Kim Jong Un and- and the issue really was whether North Korea was prepared to accept what the president called "the big deal," which is denuclearize entirely under a definition the president handed to Kim Jong Un and have the potential for an enormous economic future or try and do something less than that which was unacceptable to us. So the president held firm to his view. He deepened his relationship with Kim Jong Un. I don't view it as a failure at all when American national interests are protected.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But to be clear, North Korea still has not agreed to denuclearize as the U.S. defines it.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Not as we have defined it although they have committed in public in prior regimes in North Korea-- four or five times in writing to denuclearize and that's something--
MARGARET BRENNAN: So that doesn't mean much to you.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: --We expect them to do if they reach an agreement with us.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well on the specifics, a senior State Department official spoke to reporters and said that what the North Koreans proposed specifically was about dismantling the three mile Yongbyon complex which he defined as quote, "the totality of North Korea's plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment programs in exchange for lifting all sanctions except those on the weapons programs." Did the U.S. make a counter offer?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, the counter offer has been there from the beginning-- from- from the very first summit back in Singapore, which is if North Korea commits to complete denuclearization-- including its ballistic missile program and its chemical and biological weapons programs, the prospect of economic progress is there. The president--
MARGARET BRENNAN: But that's not what North Korea put on the table--
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: That's not what they--
MARGARET BRENNAN: They put on this narrow definition.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: A very limited concession by the North Koreans involving the Yongbyon complex which includes an aging nuclear reactor and some percentage of their uranium enrichment plutonium reprocessing capabilities. In exchange, they wanted substantial relief from the sanctions. Now, one thing President Trump has said beginning in the 2016 campaign is that he's not going to make the mistakes of prior administrations and get into this action for action kind of arrangement which benefits--
MARGARET BRENNAN: So there was no counter offer.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: --the North Koreans. Our counter offer was where we have been where the president's has exercises persuasive abilities on Kim Jong Un to take the big deal and they weren't willing to do it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But what made the president stake out this maximalist position?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: It's not--
MARGARET BRENNAN: You negotiated with the North Koreans before, going back to 2002. Did you see the same pattern playing out now?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I think the difference that President Trump has articulated to the North Koreans is the future for them once they make the strategic decision to denuclearize. What they've done before is promise to denuclearize, get economic benefits in return and then renege on the deal. What the president was trying to get them to do is look at what was possible for them overall. And I think he remains optimistic that this is possible. Kim Jong Un himself said in our last meeting, you know we're going to go through many stations on- before we achieve this deal. The meeting in Hanoi was one such station. So the president is ready to keep talking.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you expecting North Korea to come back with an offer?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I don't know what they're going to do. I think the president himself said that he expects they'll want to go back and re-evaluate what happened certainly we will- we'll look at continuing the economic sanctions against North Korea which brought them to the table in the first place. We'll see what happens next.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But in the meantime, North Korea can still produce nuclear fuel.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: And they have been doing it. Yes, they have. That's exactly correct.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So they're a growing threat.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, I think our objective remains to find a way to get them to denuclearize. The president's trying this negotiation but his objective has always been denuclearization.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is the window for diplomacy about to close here? I mean this is- this seems like an open ended timeline.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I wouldn't- I wouldn't say it that way. Look, the president opened the door for North Korea in Singapore and they didn't walk through. He kept the door open--
MARGARET BRENNAN: Eight months ago.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: He kept the door open during that eight month period. He kept it open in Hanoi. The North Koreans can walk through it, it's really up to them. That's the diplomatic window.
MARGARET BRENNAN: When you were on this program last July though you said the plan was to dismantle North Korea's nuclear facilities and have it turn over its weapons of mass destruction within a year. AMBASSADOR BOLTON: What--
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that still a realistic timeline?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: No, the question you asked then was operationally how long would it take. There was some dispute within the U.S. government over a period of time, once North Korea made the strategic decision to give up its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, how long would it take to conduct that dismantlement and with a few exceptions our judgment was we could finish it within a year. Once the process started.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you still think it'll take a year to dismantle it?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: This is--
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you acknowledged they haven't even agreed to denuclearize--
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: No, no they have not agreed. Exactly.
MARGARET BRENNAN: --and there's no expiration date on this offer to continue to negotiate?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: There- there is no expiration date. As I say, the president is fully prepared to keep negotiating at lower levels or to speak to Kim Jong Un again when it's appropriate.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But aren't they a growing threat if they can continue to develop nuclear fuel? Doesn't the leverage get reduced on our end?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I don't think the leverage gets reduced because I think we will keep the maximum pressure campaign in place even before the summit. We were looking at ways to tighten it up to- to stop for example the ship to ship transfers that the North Koreans are using to evade the sanctions, to talk to other countries to make sure they tighten up on North Korea. It was the sanctions that brought the North Koreans to the table. It's the sanctions they want relief from and relief they can get if they denuclearize.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before the president went to Hanoi was the U.S. aware that North Korea would not allow anything beyond the Yongbyon complex? I mean the second uranium enrichment site that the president nodded to in his press conference. Did you know that was not on the table?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well we don't know what's on the table from- from North Korea until it comes out of the mouth of Kim Jong Un, the chairman. He's calling--
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well that's the diplomats are supposed to be laying the groundwork for. So the president doesn't walk away with a failure.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: He- he didn't walk away with a failure. Unless you're prepared to say that it would be better to accept a bad deal than to walk away from no deal, to me that's a success.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you thought that nothing else was on the table. You were just testing the prospects by sending the president to Hanoi?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: No, no, no. We- we honestly didn't know. I mean it's- it's not unusual in these circumstances to find that there are additional concessions that the other side might make. But we've tried to make it clear to them- as again the president has said this repeatedly we're not going to make the mistakes of past administrations. We're not going to make the mistake that Obama made in the Iran nuclear deal. What we want is denuclearization broadly defined as the president himself laid out for Kim Jong Un in the paper that he gave him.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So- but you've tested this proposition now of what it's like to negotiate top down? AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well we've had two- we've had two meetings.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This is now the- what- fourth commander in chief to try to do this? There's a very different approach but the success rate hasn't been anything more than in the past.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well the success rate in the past was zero. So that's not a hard bar to overcome. There's a- there's an argument that proceeding deductively rather than inductively makes a lot of sense. We've had two meetings. We-we'll see what happens next.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But in the meantime, as we say, they can still produce nuclear fuel. And as you saw after the president left Hanoi, Kim Jong Un stayed there. I mean he was walking around touring hot spots in Vietnam. He no longer looks like a pariah. Didn't he gain from this?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I don't think that's the president's view at all.
MARGARET BRENNAN: He sat across from the president almost as if an equal.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: He- he did that in Singapore. The president's view is he gave nothing away.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But do you actually believe that?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: The president's view is he gave nothing away. That's- that's what matters, not my view. As I've said before, I guess I can't get people to listen so I'll try it one more time, I'm the national security advisor. I'm not the national security decision maker.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well- well your views have been well documented in the past.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Usually by me. I mean I've written a lot- I've written a lot in the past--
MARGARET BRENNAN: You've been skeptical for--
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: And--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --many, many years.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: And as I've said, those- those views are out there. Anybody can read them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: My job now is to help the president, give him his advice, give him my advice. He'll make the decisions.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And to be clear the administration still is no longer advocating regime change?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: The position of the administration is we want denuclearization of North Korea and that's the objective we're pursuing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you still believe that Kim Jong Un can deliver on that?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I think he is the authoritative ruler of that country and if he were to make the strategic decision to denuclearize, we think it would happen.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The president was asked about this American student Otto Warmbier who died tragically after being released after some brutal treatment in North Korean captivity. When was it that the president actually brought up his case to Kim Jong Un?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, that was in one of the meetings in- on- on- the second day, I think, and look--
MARGARET BRENNAN: In Hanoi?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: In Hanoi. The president's been--
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that the first time he brought it up?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: No I think it's been brought up before. I think it was brought up in Singapore. But the president's been very clear he viewed what happened to Otto Warmbier as barbaric and unacceptable and I think the best thing North Korea could do right now would be to come up with a full explanation of exactly what happened to him.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But it seemed to suggest that the president, since he said he took Kim Jong Un at his word, was willing to put aside these egregious human rights abuses and basically the killing of an American while in captivity.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Listen, I've heard the president talk about Otto Warmbier on any number of occasions in the Oval Office. And I know how strongly he feels about it. I have no doubt of that whatever.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you on another topic about this American, Hoda Muthana, an ISIS bride, born in New Jersey, living in Alabama before she went to live within the Caliphate. She told CBS that she is a U.S. citizen, that she traveled to Syria on an American passport. Why not have her face the consequences of her actions in a U.S. court?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: My understanding is that she is not a U.S. citizen. That's- that's the take of the State Department at this point.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well they issued her passport.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: You know, look, all I can say is what- what I've been informed and that's the position we take. But you know, just as an- as a general proposition, Americans can renounce their citizenship by their words and by their actions aligning with foreign powers. I think you have to look at each case on- on its own. And if she's got evidence of citizenship, she needs to present it. We'll take a look it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But doesn't this get to this broader challenge for the administration of what to do with these members of ISIS who had her citizenship revoked by their host countries? Where do they go to face trial? I mean if- if the claim here is that she's not American but truly Yemeni, you're not going to send her to Yemen. Where does she actually face justice?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Certainly the- the situation of the 800 to a 1,000 ISIS prisoners that are being held by the Syrian opposition in northeast Syria is very much on our mind. We've spoken to our European allies about some of them taking their citizens back. We're looking at what to do with the rest of them. It's one reason frankly we'd like to successfully negotiate the status of northeast Syria so that the prisoners for the foreseeable future can stay exactly in the prison facilities there and now.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you might bring some of them to United States to face trial.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: It- it's a possibility but we're- we're not eager to have simply pick up that responsibility we think others have the responsibility too and- and that's the approach we're taking.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go I want to ask you the House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings has requested information about your personal security clearance. Is there anything you know of that would have raised a red flag what he's looking for here?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Not- not at all. You know someday I'll be a private citizen again and I'd be delighted to take this nonsense on in detail. But as a White House official right now threatened with subpoenas, with a lot of other things that's going on in Congress, I'll take guidance from the White House Counsel's Office and the Justice Department and just wait for the day when I'm a private citizen.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But counsel, the White House, will respond to this?
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: They will respond to it, that's correct.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador Bolton, thank you for joining us.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Thank you.