Of its Nuclear Weaponry and my concern of proliferation. Gather as i was having getings, what is it that we need to do to get china. One of the things im convinced we are unwilling to do and it is from my experience as one of the authors of the iran sanctions universe sanction the of Financial Transactions because that would lead to chinese banks. Has someo that, that of the toughest and most consequential actions on iran. Theave not pursued Financial Transaction Center as an element of getting those who want to facilitate north koreas actions and cream pressure on them at the were created pressure on iran from this engaging with it financially. Freed, have we contemplated the type of financial sanctions that we levied against iran as it relates to those who would be doing business with north korea and he would be pretty them access to their Banking Centers . Permitting them access to their Banking Centers . We are looking at all possible points of leverage and pressure against north korea. We have abundant tools. Youre quite right. The financial sanctions against iran combined with the oil and gas sanctions were powerful. There is no question about that. I did not ask about all tools, masking specifically about these tools. It seems that we are reticent to pursue the type of Financial Transactions because they would largely to chinese banks. In the absence of doing that, one of the most powerful tools you might have left to get north korea to observe International Norms and the will of the International Community is missing peers why is it that the administration has not come forward and sought specifically that type of either two or implement if they have the power to do so themselves . . We have designated a number of north korean banks. The action which the imagination took on monday demonstrates that we are willing to take the next step of designating third country entities which are cooperating with designated north korean banks. We have crossed that line and we are actively looking and actively looking at additional targets. Which chinese banks have you sanctioned . Chinese Financial Institutions this monday sanctioned by the treasury have,ment and i think you the four chinese nationals and one entity complicit in the sanctions. Im talking about institutions. I would like to know whether you have all the authorities you need to go after chinese banks that are engaged in dealing with Financial Transactions that north korea would ultimately need. To sum it up if we are going after those banks that that is an incredibly powerful tool. If you can expose only tell me, to have all the authorities that you need and if so, is it the intention of the administration to use this authorities against the for bank as it relates to transactions of north korea . Yes, we believe we have the authorities we need. Yes we are looking at all possible pressure points including financial. Thehen the onus is on administration to not congress to provide you additional authorities. One of my main concerns is north koreas level about sharing and transfer nuclear technology. North korea has successfully subverted sanctions and exported import controls to falsely flagging cargo ships. I want to get a sense from you taking, whate we steps are International Partners taking since march to more rigorously monitor and ensure that all countries are complying with the strict controls of the Un Security Council passed in march. Because proliferation is a paramount concern of the obama administration, we are working through a variety of intelligence and Law Enforcement channels to significantly dprkce the monitoring of activities to establish telltales and tripwires for the purpose of making it harder and harder for the dpr k to successfully sell or transfer trynology or material and to ensure that we are able to detect efforts and may undertake to do that. That involves close cooperation with north koreas neighbors and constrainedt it is in terms of its ability to move forward move ships, cargo and planes and people. And increased scrutiny as international airports, greater verification a password information, requirement to be says as well as close government to government information sharing among the steps we are taking. Add to your point about china, were working our way through the suite of options in terms of steps we can take towards chinas behavior towards north korea. We have begun with the goal of this persuading china to take more and more action in part because china can do far more effectively from our point of view then we can achieve indirectly through direct sanctions against china. As my colleague mentioned, we alked at bought b taking direct action against Chinese People when evidence is there. We make a point of bringing information to the chinese and encouraging the chinese to act on that information. As they develop it further in their own Law Enforcement, they have abundant tools of their own to put restrictions on the dpr k. Im not in the business of defending china. We think there is much more that they need to do. President obama stood up and china and made that point directly and exquisitely in public as he has in private. That the trendline dprk,nese actionk against liberation and the trendline of their cooperation with the International Community generally through the u. N. And with United States and bilateral basis is improving. Rubio. The recent study by the center called in china shadow. Basically it is clear from this report that china allowed to conduct 532 my dollars in trade volume. The report identified you discussed this ancient against one. Why did treasury only designate one of the Six Companies . We are actively looking at all possible targets. I will not speak for treasury and its individual decisions. In my experience, treasury is both effective and aggressive and identify targets and pursuing them. Have sufficient evidence to me treasuries legal threshold. I will tell you that we are in the mode of gathering information and will go with the information texas. Takesre the information us. I dont want to talk about a specific company and specific designation in the session. Why . They are named. Everyone knows who the companies are. It is on a mister. Mystery. As a general rule, it is best not to talk about current investigations. This is an open, reported, this is other for the report to see. This is not a secret. I will consult with my treasury colleagues and try to get whatever we can. Oftent is why they are so hard to sit through. I do me to be disrespectful. Dont mean to be disrespectful. Everyone can see what this is. We are afraid to press the case against too Many Chinese Companies because of the broader situation between china and the essays. Have the white house were state department ever pressured the Justice Department to delay designations to avoid embarrassing china . Not to my knowledge. The other department of justice indictment unsealed, colonel indictment list put millions of u. S. Dollars go on the back to 2009 where these Front Companies served as financial , it was on in order to evade restrictions on u. S. Dollar transaction. From 2000 wait 92016, why did we wait to act . Beyond the issues of sanctions come we have the issue of pressure because of the broader situation with china and Foreign Policy. This looks to me like an administration that is saying, lets not go too hard because it will destabilize our water relationship with china a series of other topics. Broader relationships with china on a series of other topics. Can anyone disrupt me the reason for this discrepancy . Why the summary more iran designated Bank North Korea is patients when north korea has finally developed weapons but our chemistry tenet and using it tests. Sorts of caps why the discrepancies . The administered his acts of the money to designate the chinese banks was an important step. As ii said earlier, said earlier, we are at a number of targets. Ofh respect to the numbers comparing iran and north korea, the iranian economy is both much larger and much more connected to the rest of the world and the north Korean Company and the north korean economy was despite , is areas of various hidden generally lower more open. Is theer but i think administration shares congresss view that the north korean threat and actions including the recent Nuclear Tests compels us to intensify our Pressure Campaign working both the u. N. With third countries such as the japaneseSouth Koreans, canadians and using our National Authority and accorded fashion to increase the pressure. Welcomed the legislation earlier. We put it to good use. Ourntend to bring to current targets. What this looks like is we are as we involved in a provocation response cycle with north korea and you talk about the sanctions, and my comes up. You talk about the bill that congress passed. It was only until then that we finally designated north korea as a primary moneylender. Money launder. This looks like a Company Shall things. Sanctionsding back on. North korean template is brilliantly. Buying time for themselves to reach the point average. The other is, what this looks like. The United States is trying to holding Us Diplomatic fire in such as fire on some of these issues for fear of impacting our relationship with china. In our fear of offending the Chinese Government going after these were also involved in other sorts of inventors endeavors. I dont know what had is taken so long. Just a surprise rep. Pompeo today. You mentioned the trap of the provocation the song cycle response cycle. That is not what were doing. Workingr especially, through the u. N. And other channels, we are in a position pressureifying independent of a provocation response cycle. Earnest. We intend to increase pressure on north korea. To do so, we also have to work around the world with third countries and with the chinese. That is our intention. I agree that a provocation response cycle and staying within such a cycle would not be the right approach. That is not our approach. Add that if it for the administrations policy to tiptoe around china in dealing with the north korean threat, we would never have decided with republic of korea to deploy the system. We would never have designated chinese entity a chinese national. We would never have taken the decision to send the b1 bomber or Aircraft Carrier to the Korean Peninsula. It is very much the case that we seek active chinese corporation. We recognize that a change in chinas behavior is a prerequisite to getting change in north koreas behavior and the president , secretary of state and others have made to china that we think there is much more that china needs to do and can do and should do to tighten the screws on the dprk given the significant leverage. All those bizarre party. Were talking about section two. We section one country company. There are multiple companies. We have just as much evidence against them. Everyone knows who they are. When you look at how long it has taken to get to this point, you look at the limitation that have been placed, only one company has been designated under are multiple companies of equal status and some are called in more of these deals. It starts to look like were trying to not do too much too notion of as standard of proof, i understand about that. From this perspective, it is a difference of tuition. This is not a secret. The world knows. Take great steps to hide it. They dont want to see a regime collapse in going to people we knowver the border who these countries are. Companies are. There are plenty of targets of opportunity. Under the senses we passed, these are mandatory investigations required. You intend to provide us with waivers of companies are investigating . No. Why have we only designated one company . As i said earlier, the treasury department, state department and our intelligence inmunity are all involved investigations. As assistant secretary russell preferredourse the option is for china itself to do more as we think it should. Option is to have Chinese Companies independently come to the conclusion that it would be a lot better for them if they avoided interaction with north korea and companies. Korean companies. Our actions on monday in the claim indicate we are willing to section Chinese Companies who are evading unr u. S. Sanctions. We are pursuing all of these avenues. We know that kim jonguns goal is to die is a very old man. That does not work for him. Warhere an allout nuclear as he will probably not become a very old man. Plans whichs the are in place to use preemptive force against north Koreas Nuclear arsenal or its leadership which could increase the risk of Accidental Nuclear war in the crisis. South koreas defense minister informed that they have forces on standby and are ready to assassinate kim jongil and if they feel threatened by Nuclear Weapons. He said this, south korea has a plan to use precision missile capabilities to target the enemies facilities in major areas as well as a limitation the enemies leadership. If north korea fears that south korea tennessees productive force to kill its leader, then back increasing pressures for him to delegate control over his Nuclear Weapons to frontline whateer commanders. Military commanders. If they believe this, that could create pressure to use the Nuclear Weapons. Both of these pressures to drastically increase the risk of Inadvertent Nuclear War on the peninsula. Riskur view, is there a that military plans focused on preventive attacks on north koreas leadership and Nuclear Arsenal could increase the risk of uncontrolled Nuclear Escalation . As part of your strategy for managing the fed, as the a Administration Working on plans to deescalate in military crisis so that it does not spiral out of control . Do you foresee potential arrangements for Crisis Communications with the north korean regime to defuse and deescalate such a situation that could lead to an Accidental Nuclear war . The short answer is yes. Lest there beed an escort torry cycle on the Korean Peninsula. We have in place very serious counter escalation plans in the u. S. Rok alliance. The commander of the combined americas best is, as his predecessors have been, working with the rok leadershipd national on a day in and day out basis hasa very the alliance very specific plans to deal with a variety of contingencies with andew to deescalate defusing. This is been a big part of our joint defense strategy. There is a loss of hyperbole and frederick lots of hyperbole in thederick rhetoric way the north korea speaks and the way that south korean officials occasionally speak when they are testifying or speaking before the press. The comments that of the defense minister taken by themselves represent on intent on the part of the republic of korea to take provocative action. The northern is koreans react to it. Whether or not south korea intends is separate from the paranoia reduced induced. That is full we were concerned about during the cold war. Was about escalation of frederick that could be used by those that with think that Nuclear Weapons are usable. That is always a concern. In followingeeing the 2013 nuclear test, found that 66 of the south korean public favored acquiring an independent Nuclear Deterrent at the north koreas test in january of this year, a senior south korean figure suggested that south korea should acquire its own Nuclear Weapons, referring to our Nuclear Umbrella that we provide he said, we cant borrow umbrellas next door every time it rains repletion were a raincoat of its own. Our own. How would you address pressures and south Korean Society to a Nuclear Weapons acquire Nuclear Weapons and Japanese Society . What actions are we taking to reduce the likelihood of a move in that direction . I think that the pressure in the mainstream Political Society in either the republic of korea or japan to contemplate the acquisition of Nuclear Weapons is directly commensurate with their faith in americas commitment as an ally to the defense and the extended deterrence and Nuclear Umbrella provided by their alliance with United States. Believewould have to that if there was a Nuclear Attack on south korea that we would then launch a Nuclear Attack on north korea