28 November 1997
TRANSCRIPT: 11/21 BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON FOUR-PARTY PREP. TALKS
(Plenary talks on Korean Peninsula to begin December 9) (3410) New York -- The United States, the Republic of Korea (ROK), the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), and the People's Republic of China have agreed to begin plenary talks to achieve a lasting and stable peace on the Korean Peninsula, according to a senior American official speaking on background. The negotiations are scheduled to begin in Geneva on December 9, the official said at a November 21 background briefing in New York. "There are two logical, broad agenda items" to the negotiations, the official said. "One is that structural basket of how to replace the Armistice, and then the other is that set of things which will reduce tension or build confidence among the parties that make those structural changes meaningful. And then you can find all sorts of ways to break it down beyond those two." "In order to get to Geneva, we have agreed that this very broad language is suitable and appropriate to describe what we want to do. So we have actually taken the very broad two-part agenda that I was mentioning and further simplified it, although I think you will find the necessary elements of the two-part agenda are contained pretty clearly in it," the official continued. The official stressed that there is no linkage whatsoever between North Korea's participation in the talks and U.S. food aid to North Korea. Following is the transcript of the briefing: (begin text) BACKGROUND BRIEFING BY SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL ON FOUR-PARTY PREPARATORY TALKS COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY KELLOGG CENTER FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS NEW YORK, NEW YORK November 21, 1997 SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Well, hello everybody again. This will be the last time that I get to background you from here. From now on, we'll be doing our background briefings in Geneva. Today was really a rather quiet finish to what has been an on-again, off-again process. For reasons that I cannot really even speculate about, the North Korean side came with the seriousness that had been absent in the last meeting. And we moved right through all the business that we had to accomplish, namely the agenda and the specific dates for this meeting. I would like to say, that there had been some very fine work done by members of our delegations to help us get to this point. And so this -- what we have called the working-level meeting -- was an important contributor. And, of course, as always, we are grateful to the people here at Columbia for their generosity and flexibility in making these facilities available to us on relatively short notice. Finally, I think it is worth noting that although -- I will say that all four delegations were present with seriousness of purpose and skillfulness of their diplomacy. I would want to note in particular that the U.S. and the ROK have, as always, been most cooperative and coordinated. We have held consultations at various moments leading up to this. And far from today having been a (inaudible) event that was sought particularly by the United States and conceived of by the United States, this was very much the fruit of our joint efforts dating all the way back to the original proposal by the two presidents, President Clinton and President Kim Young Sam, in Cheju. And so we have been together every step of this long way. The facts of what we agreed speak for themselves. They're in this public, joint press announcement. But I would be very happy to entertain questions if there are items of background that you wish to ask about. QUESTION: Did the North Korean delegation explicitly drop the demands on troop withdrawal and a separate peace treaty with Washington? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: The agenda, the language of the agenda was agreed. It is a single statement. What we have done to get to that point is to assure, as a principle of this, that all parties, or any party, is free to raise any issue, which is, of course -- This is something that we could not prevent from occurring anyway. QUESTION: So, is that a concession on the U.S. side? (Inaudible) SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Well, if you wish to call it a concession by us, you're free to do so, but that was our position coming into this. It's kind of hard to see how we conceded anything to get to our position. QUESTION: I thought your position was not to include those in the talks, and this wording seems to be comprehensive enough so they could (inaudible). SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Our position was that a broad and comprehensive agenda would not prejudge the talks. QUESTION: Why do you think North Korea got serious this time? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: I think you'll have to ask them. I do not know. But I think that it was apparent by their behavior that they were ready on this occasion to reach these agreements. QUESTION: Is there any food aid issue or any kind of linking (inaudible)? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: No. QUESTION: The announcement (inaudible) peace regime. (Inaudible) Is that more towards reunification? What does peaceful regime mean? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Well, at various times and in various places, a lot of different words have been used to describe this -- a peace regime, a peace mechanism, a peace structure, a permanent peace, a peace accord, etc. -- and this just happened to be the word that popped up this time. But it has no special significance. QUESTION: To the last question. This (inaudible) agenda, confidence-building measures have been dropped, the words confidence-building measures were dropped and issues concerning tensions, that was there. Is this some compromise to accommodate North Korean request? I think they can discuss every -- redeployment or (inaudible) U.S. forces on Korean peninsula. Is this some concession? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: No, it isn't. This language is simply consistent with the overall effort to make the language be broader, rather than more narrow, and confidence-building measures is surely subsumed by tension reduction. QUESTION: What time frame are you looking at, at this point, to try and accomplish something in the next round of talks? Is this is a first in a year-long process (inaudible)? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: I don't know if you all heard. The question was about how long it's going to last. I think that this first session will probably be a rather brief one and, perhaps, mostly procedural, in order to launch the structures of this talk. And subsequent sessions may be a bit longer. But I think that there will be many sessions over a period of at least a few years. That would be my prediction. Of course, we will be working on this seriously and with urgency, and so it's not our goal to have it drag out. But I think that the task is big enough, we have waited long enough, that to lead you to believe that we will get it all done within a few months would be foolish. QUESTION: Who is supposed to be the heads of the delegations in Geneva? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Each delegation is now going to go back and pick its delegations, and we will inform each other of what we're going to do. So those are decisions that haven't been made yet. QUESTION: You mention about the structure of the meeting. Do you have in mind like a (inaudible) meeting and a (inaudible) meeting? Do you have any kind of idea how do you structure the meeting? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Well, we do have some ideas along these lines. However, those are decisions that are going to have to come out of the plenary meeting by mutual agreement. QUESTION: The December 9th meeting is just one-day meeting or can go along for two or three days? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: It is not intended that it be just a single day meeting, but I would think, myself, in terms of a couple of days to do what we can realistically do in a first session like this. But there's no set ending time. QUESTION: Who proposed December 9, and how did you come to this agreement? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Let me see if I can recall that. A lot of dates were looked at. Everybody had their calendars out, and we were all looking at the travel schedules and fare schedules. And, to tell you the truth, I don't really recall. QUESTION: Did the North Koreans (inaudible) earlier or later? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: On this occasion, all four parties had agreed that we would commence this process during this year. Those were the dates that we all were able to agree on. There were a lot of different proposals, and none of them was discussed in any terms other than logistics and scheduling it. QUESTION: Did anybody propose holding the talks after the 18th of December? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Christmas week was mentioned, and I objected (laughter), because of Christmas. QUESTION: So, how would you characterize the events (inaudible)? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Well, an overused word, but one that I feel quite comfortable with on this occasion, is businesslike. There were really no moments of difficulty. Everything just marched along. I think that the imagery of the delegations sitting there with their calendars out, looking for a date that would work, really sort of captures the sense of -- QUESTION: That's not exactly what I meant. I meant in the scheme of this sort of bumpy road that the peninsula's been on for the past 40 years. SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Well, I am very pleased that we are where we are and that we achieved what we achieved. Of course, when we talk about what it is that we are launching here, we are speaking prospectively, what we hope to accomplish. And so it would not be very politic of me to try to oversell it to you. But I feel that this is an extremely important moment, and we have agreed that these four countries will come together and begin the task of seriously trying to replace the Armistice and seriously trying to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula. It holds enormous prospects for the future of the Korean peninsula. QUESTION: On the way to reunification? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Well, the goal of the two Koreas has always been reunification, and the United States supports that goal. I believe that you will be able to correlate progress in tension reduction to the improvement of the prospects for peaceful reunification. But it would not be correct for me to say that that is the sole purpose of this effort. (Inaudible) QUESTION: From the American perspective, does the date of December 18th, the Korean elections, have any significance on what you're trying to do before that? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Well, I don't vote in Korea, so honestly, it was not a consideration for us. It would be a matter of simple logic, however, that for the ROK delegation, they would not choose to begin such a newsworthy event on the day of an election. If it had been the day of an American election, that would've been our viewpoint. QUESTION: (Inaudible) Christmas. Did the North Koreans propose Christmas week? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Yes. In the course of everybody trying out various dates. It was certainly not the first thing that was suggested. Yes? QUESTION: You have already agreed to the level of plenary sessions, and I think that the chief of the delegates will be either a cabinet minister or officials who are appointed by cabinet minister. Does that agreement still stand? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Yes. QUESTION: And also, what do you expect to discuss for those two days (inaudible) talks to kick off that broad agenda? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Well, I don't want to speak on behalf of the other three countries involved. I believe that there is a symbolic importance to the beginning of this. There must be a first step, and the four parties must gather and must hear one another's views. And before they can begin to discuss those views, they must hear them first. Also, I believe that there are some structural issues that will need to be addressed for the purpose of future meetings. And then finally, some of the things that are contained in this agenda, this broad language, such as tension reduction, we need to start to find ways to implement that. QUESTION: If you would like to set up a subcommittee which (inaudible)... preparatory talks? And, second question, is the United States drafting some proposal to facilitate... (inaudible)? Are you initiating this process? Are you going to propose such details (inaudible)... confidence building measures? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: There is a very important role in the context of tension reduction on the Korean peninsula. There's a very important role for confidence building measures. And, yes, we have been studying confidence building measures very seriously. I do not wish to leave you with the impression that in this first meeting, there's going to be a list of confidence building measures that will be presented, discussed and either agreed on or rejected. It may be more important to first establish a mechanism for studying confidence building measures among (inaudible) the parties. This is not going to be a sort of discussion in which the United State tables proposals and the other parties are there to either agree or not. (Inaudible) QUESTION: Was any mention made about the new leadership of North Korea? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: No. QUESTION: Doesn't it affect in any way the attitude of North Korean? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Speculatively? I suppose that it probably does. The clarification of the leadership structure in North Korea, this may have had some effect on their ability now to work through these (inaudible) with us so smoothly. But that's speculation. QUESTION: Before December 9, (inaudible)? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Before December 9, do we have a plan to have a --? QUESTION: Another bilateral meeting with North Korea? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: A bilateral meeting with North Korea. We ordinarily do take advantage of the North Korean delegation's presence in this country to hold bilateral meetings, and we expect that we will do so again. But it would be not in connection with the meeting to come, but rather in connection with their presence in this country this time. QUESTION: Can you explain (inaudible) status of (inaudible) North Korea? Did that come up in any way? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: The subject did not come up. It is not linked. However, the status of that matter is that we recently sent a team of U.S. Government officials headed by A.I.D. to North Korea to conduct an assessment of the situation (inaudible), with respect to food production, distribution, and health effects. The dates of that team were (inaudible). There was a press statement about the results issued in Washington last week, and a backgrounder by A.I.D. But I could tell you, since you, I assume, aren't that familiar with this aspect, they got around and saw some parts of North Korea that had not been seen by American officials before. They felt that they had received a good deal of cooperation from North Korean authorities. They came away with better understanding of the situation in North Korea. And, thus, one of the goals of this mission, which was to add somewhat to the transparency of North Korea's situation, we did achieve that. QUESTION: At another meeting with North Korea, probably next week, are you planning to propose a new (inaudible) easing economic sanctions against North Korea. What will be the agenda of the bilateral meeting next week? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: We always have a rather broad agenda of bilateral issues, and I think those issues are all very familiar to you. They include some of the things that we have (inaudible) areas of concern, such as missile exports, our missing from the Korean War, terrorism, (inaudible) liaison offices. So, I think we will probably cover all these areas. QUESTION: One last question (inaudible). You had said that you thought this was going to take several meetings. (Inaudible). Did you make any agreement on what would happen after Geneva? Where you would go after Geneva? Are you going to have a rotating (inaudible)? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: We will make decisions at each plenary about the schedule of subsequent plenaries, and they will all be held in Geneva. The chairmanship and secretariat will rotate according to a random draw -- with the sole exception being that the United States' place in the draw is fixed. We're going to chair and be the secretariat for the first meeting. QUESTION: So, you will be the chair for the first meeting (inaudible)? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: The United States will be the chair. The head of the American delegation, to be named. QUESTION: And about the agenda, it doesn't seem (inaudible). We can discuss anything. But the first session coming up in Geneva, it doesn't seem like we have achieved very much and (inaudible)...Do you kind of have that perspective as well, or do you see it (inaudible)? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Well, I can understand the question, but I don't agree with it. I think that we've already cleared away an awful lot of the underbrush. The issues of achieving a more stable peace on the Korean Peninsula are very complicated. And they're not going to be simplified by coming out with an agenda that has five, six items on it. You could have several pages and still not have exhausted all of the things that need to be done. So I assert that the most important thing, in taking the first step down that road, is to do what we have done, which is to establish a pattern of being able to meet and discuss issues with all of the parties present. QUESTION: One question about the language of the (inaudible) announcement? May I understand that you have (inaudible) (one, broad?) agenda, or you would have a (inaudible) agenda aimed at the establishment of a peace regime and issues concerning tension reduction?. SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: It is one broad agenda, with the ability to further specify the agenda. It's the prerogative of the parties in Geneva. QUESTION: Now, you have a very broad agenda, but once the talks are started, you have to think of concrete agenda. And in the event of, you know, the talks (inaudible), you might face some difficulties, as you have already. What would be the process for setting up the agenda for the talks? SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Well, you could reasonably make the case that the agenda should have 20 items on it. Or, alternatively, you could reasonably make the case -- as I have done from this very podium -- that there are two logical, broad agenda items. One is that structural basket of how to replace the Armistice, and then the other is that set of things which will reduce tension or build confidence among the parties that make those structural changes meaningful. And then you can find all sorts of ways to break it down beyond those two. In order to get to Geneva, we have agreed that this very broad language is suitable and appropriate to describe what we want to do. So we have actually taken the very broad two-part agenda that I was mentioning and further simplified it, although I think you will find the necessary elements of the two-part agenda are contained pretty clearly in it. QUESTION: The North Korean delegation mentioned a threat. They will inevitably raise the (inaudible) the U.S. and North Korea peace treaty. (Inaudible). SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIAL: Well, they did not make any such statement today. If you're asking me, "Do I think that they have abandoned their consistent positions?" No, I don't think that they've abandoned those position. But I think that what they've done is agreed that it's better to get to Geneva and have their positions heard in a serious forum than not get there. Well, I think we have exhausted your questions. I thank you very much for coming. (end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
