State Dept. Noon Briefing, Friday, Oct. 6, 2000
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2000 2:30 P.M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) Q: This morning, United States and North Korea released a joint statement on international terrorism. How meaningful this step is? It can be a step you needed for North Korea to take? MR. BOUCHER: We think that this is an important statement because it puts us and North Korea together in the same mode of trying to address the terrorism issue seriously, of having similar understandings of opposition to terrorism and the kind of steps that need to be taken, and that pledging to work together with the aim of removing the North Koreans from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. So it puts us in the process of working together on terrorism issues, having similar understandings of the situation. It doesn't resolve the issues in and of itself. Q: Yesterday, Ambassador Sherman stated that there is no precondition for Mr. Jo's visit. And yesterday it was a big briefing and today there is an announcement. Why wasn't the announcement included yesterday? Was there any significant development between yesterday and today? And isn't this precondition, or is it kind of red carpeting for Mr. Jo's visit here? MR. BOUCHER: First of all, before you wind this up into a big theory, what Ambassador Sherman said yesterday remains true today. Second of all, this statement -- Q: She said at one point during the briefing that it was Thursday, Richard. MR. BOUCHER: It was Thursday. That remains true. When she talked, it was Thursday. Come on, let's not -- what she said yesterday remains true today. There is no preconditions. Second of all, this particular statement results from the most recent discussions that we've had. You know, frankly, all these things get put together and get put out according to their own time table. I wouldn't ascribe any importance at all to the fact that she briefed yesterday and we have the statement today, other than that we have a lot of things going on in terms of our relations with North Korea and we're working on it every single day of the week. Q: Richard, Churches for Middle East Peace and several other international organizations have mentioned now -- have charged Israel with use of excessive force, particularly the use of helicopters. And the Churches are now calling for the United States to review its decision to send additional helicopters out there since they are being used in violation of the military assistance agreement between Israel and the United States. Did this subject come up, and are you considering cautioning Israel concerning her use of both excessive force and US materiel? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of the charges, and I'm not aware the subject has come up. Okay, now we're back on North Korea. Q: A cynic looking at this statement, this joint statement, might say, well, that's all very well, but do you and the North Koreans in fact agree on what groups are terrorists and what aren't? I mean, for example, do they accept that the Japanese Red Army is a terrorist group, and do they agree to withhold safe haven from these people, as the statement suggests? MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, they do agree that one doesn't provide safe haven to terrorists. Then you get into the question of definition of particular people. Q: I mean, unless you agree on who fits in this -- MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to say that we have ongoing discussions of this issue. This statement marks a certain stage in our discussions. We will continue our discussions. We said we will continue our work to work together in order to address the issues that are necessary to take them off the terrorism list. I think you are all quite aware of what we have said in the past is needed to do that. Certainly the North Koreans are quite aware. So whether that kind of understanding has been reached at this stage or not, we do know what is necessary for them to get off the terrorism list. Q: So, in other words, you're still working towards an agreement on who falls within the category which -- MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say that. I said whether we -- I spilled my water, though. I said whether we have reached an understanding on the issue of who falls as a terrorist group or not, we certainly know what is necessary as we work forward towards this goal of working in cooperation to remove them from the terrorism list. So whether we have it now or later, we're going to have to get there in order if we're going to take them off the list. Q: So is there anything very new in the statement? MR. BOUCHER: The fact that we have lined ourselves up in the same direction with a common understanding of how to address the issue, I think is a good -- is a positive development. Q: Richard, one of the requirements for them to get off the list was to make a public statement affirming their opposition to terrorism. And they did that -- not today. They've done that before. Is this, the release of this statement, yet another step on the road to being removed? Does this put them any closer to being removed than they were, say, before, or if this statement had not come out? And the second thing is that, you know, it's a joint statement. Who did you write this with, and where was it written? Or was it not done -- was this done in New York? MR. BOUCHER: I think it was done in New York. Yeah, we worked on it together and it resulted from our most recent -- I mean, from our series of discussions, including our most recent discussions in New York. Q: Do you know -- MR. BOUCHER: When? Just the other day. Q: Right. You mentioned that Matt asked about whether you are any closer as a result of this statement. Q: You just talked of the conditions that they have to meet. MR. BOUCHER: This statement in and of itself does not resolve the issues of terrorism, does not resolve the issues for which they are on the list. It marks a step forward in regard of a way of looking at the issue, a common understanding of the issues involved, and a basis for which we can go forward and try to work out the specifics and get to the stage where they can be taken off the list. Q: It sounds like you are saying there is too much work to be done for an agreement to be reached during the visit. MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say that at all. It's quite clear. They know what they have to do. They have always known. They still know. And we'll see how quickly that can happen. Q: So it's within the realm of possibility that this could be resolved this coming week? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to start predicting that any more than was done yesterday at the briefing. These are issues that we continue to work on, and we pledged to address them together. That's all we're announcing today. Q: We were promised (inaudible) of Vice Marhsall Jo. Is that coming through the works? Do you know about that? MR. BOUCHER: Not by me. Let's schedule afterwards, do scheduling afterwards. .... Q: From the joint statement this morning, it is my impression that both countries are agreed about the Japanese Red Army issues; there is a full agreement about that. But I don't have any indication that you had agreed about the kidnapping issues of Japanese women and wives. It is still an obstacle to resolve? MR. BOUCHER: Well, again, I refer you to our terrorism report for the kinds of problems that we see in regard to North Korea's support for terrorism and the kind of issues that need to be overcome in order to get to the lifting. (The briefing was concluded at 3:10 p.m.) 10/6/00
