The White House Briefing Room
November 20, 1998
PRESS BRIEFING BY DIRECTOR OF ASIAN AFFAIRS FOR NSC JACK PRITCHARD, AND DEPUTY SECRETARY OF TREASURY LARRY SUMMERS
6:05 P.M. (L)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Tokyo, Japan)
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release November 20, 1998
PRESS BRIEFING BY
DIRECTOR OF ASIAN AFFAIRS FOR NSC JACK PRITCHARD,
AND DEPUTY SECRETARY OF TREASURY LARRY SUMMERS
Akasaka Prince Hotel
Tokyo, Japan
6:05 P.M. (L)
MR. LEAVY: For all of you who didn't get to ask questions at the
press availability with the President, we've got the Deputy Treasury Secretary
Larry Summers to talk about the economic aspects of President Clinton's and
Prime Minister Obuchi's discussions this afternoon. And we've got Jack
Pritchard, Director of Asian Affairs at the National Security Council, to talk
about the security aspects of today's discussions. Jack was also part of the
Special Envoy Kartman's trip to Yongbyon and can answer your questions on
North Korea.
..................
MR. PRITCHARD: In the bilateral meetings that the
President held with Prime Minister Obuchi they led off for about
45 minutes on a discussion on security issues. In that
discussion the President and the Prime Minister discussed the
bilateral aspect of our security relations. A couple of things
that were discussed, and that was the defense guidelines and the
importance of moving forward and passing the implementing
legislation. And Prime Minister Obuchi indicated that it was on
track, and we're pleased with that.
The other was the SACO, or the Special Action Committee
on Okinawa, that that's on track and moving forward and
ultimately will lead to the relocation of Futenba Air Base --
excuse me, Futenba Marine Corps Air Station in Okinawa.
The two also talked about the Wye River agreement, in
which the Prime Minister indicated he wanted to help support to
maintain momentum for what the President had accomplished there,
and is in the process, as he announced earlier, of pledging some
$200 million to the Palestinians over the next two years.
They also spent the best part of the discussion on
North Korea. And I can go into a little bit of that detail a
little bit later.
The two had an opportunity at dinner last night to
discuss other issues, regional issues, on Russia and China, so
that was not taken up in any significant detail.
Q Can you tell us a few things about North Korea?
One is the agreed framework puts certain things under observation
and certain things are subject to inspections. Can you just give
us a sense of which is which? And I forgot the second question.
MR. PRITCHARD: The agreed framework calls on the North
Koreans to freeze their plutonium production capability at
Yongbyon, a nuclear site. They have done that. There are IAEA
monitors there now to safeguard and to verify the implementation
of that. That's been done. We're on the verge of finishing the
canning operation of the spent fuel that is stored in the ponds
there. That should be done by the end of the year.
What is built into the agreed framework is the special
inspections later as the lite-water reactors come on line, or
about to come on line, before key or critical components go into
the LWR, the IAEA must be satisfied about North Korea's
compliance with the NPT. So that's the distinction now.
Q I remember the second question, which is, what
were the objections that the North Koreans threw into the
inspections that the President said earlier today were
unacceptable?
MR. PRITCHARD: Well, now you're talking about a couple
different things. You are now talking about the suspected
underground construction that if our suspicions are borne out
could turn out to be nuclear related, which is precisely the
reason for Ambassador Kartman's trip into North Korea the 16th
through the 18th of this month.
So what we're looking at is whether or not what we have
seen is a violation of the agreed framework. The answer is, it
is not at this point, but we certainly don't want to see anything
proceed down the road that, in fact, would endanger the agreed
framework.
Q So that's what the President was objecting to, was
inspections on that specific --
MR. PRITCHARD: What the North Koreans have initially
indicated is that to allow inspections on this particular site,
this new site, they have placed some obstacles in the way for
which we have found not acceptable. And that's what the
President was indicating.
Q When you say it's not a violation, is that on the
basis of your trip or that's what you --
MR. PRITCHARD: No, the information that we've built
all along and the reason for which we are now confronting the
North Koreans is the suspicions we have we want to ensure don't
lead to a violation of the agreed framework. So if they continue
down that road they very well could. Right now, as we said
before, it is not, but we're not concerned about the technicality
of the letter of the law. We have addressed this issue of our
concerns with them.
Q There are some in South Korea who say that the
agreed framework is -- from the standpoint of the North Koreans,
site specific, and that therefore, whatever may be going on
somewhere else in the country doesn't apply to the agreed
framework.
MR. PRITCHARD: No, that's not accurate. The agreed
framework applies to the freezing of North Koreans' plutonium
production capability. So it wouldn't matter where that were
occurring, if we had indications it was someplace else -- and we
do not -- it would fall into that category.
Q What is the overall assessment of what North Korea
is doing? Do you see the missile launch and the suspected
underground site as a breakdown, or do you see them continuing to
try to cooperate with South Korea, Japan and the United States?
MR. PRITCHARD: That's kind of an either-or on two
extremes there. We are very much concerned about the 31 August
missile launch, and that's one of the things, as the President
indicated, he was here to discuss with the Prime Minister and
it's high on his agenda when he goes to Korea today, and for
discussions tomorrow with President Kim.
In terms of the North Koreans, they certainly, I
believe, see this as the normal evolution of their own program.
Missiles, as you know, are not captured within the agreed
framework. They certainly don't think there is a violation;
there is not, but this whole issue of what the North Koreans are
doing is very much a concern to us. We don't treat it as
separate issues and we are looking at the broad range of what
North Korea's activities are, whether or not they have bought
into the concept behind the agreed framework and the four-party
talks which seeks to replace the Armistice with a permanent peace
treaty.
Q -- the inability to inspect the underground site
and the missile development are outside the framework, the agreed
framework, what does the United States do now?
MR. PRITCHARD: One of the things when the agreed
framework was developed, there was not a provision for some type
of challenge inspection or verification of concerns, and so
that's in fact what we're doing now. It's not that they are
untouchable or outside the realm of contact, but we are
aggressively engaged in discussions with the North Koreans to
figure out how we can in fact satisfy our concerns -- site access
and to ensure that there is not a violation or will not be a
violation of the agreed framework.
Q But what's the leverage the United States has --
what can the United States threaten or offer?
MR. PRITCHARD: Well, in basic terms the leverage is
the future of a relationship. The North Koreans hold very much a
value to the development of a relationship with the United
States. Within the agreed framework part of the objectives once
it is carried out or as it is being carried out is the economic
and political normalization there. We've got a series of
obstacles that are not allowing that to proceed at this point.
But it still -- it cannot be understated how much the North
Koreans ultimately value and will depend upon a more normal
relationship with the United States.
Q In these talks that you have with the North
Koreans, have they made it clear -- there was a news report today
that there were two new launch facilities for medium-range
missiles and stepped-up short-range missiles. Have they made it
clear why they have such a robust missile program? Do they
maintain it's for their own security, do we suspect it's for
leverage on other fronts?
MR. PRITCHARD: Well, without commenting on the
specific story in mind that is coming out tomorrow in The
Washington Post or today in The Washington Post, the North
Koreans have contended all along that they are a small country,
they have some requirements to defend themselves. They have the
right, the sovereign right for the indigenous production and
deployment of missiles. They certainly are a cash-strapped
nation which accounts for some of their motivation for the
proliferation of those things.
Q The President said that it is possible that these
developments signal a more hostile attitude by the North Koreans
to the rest of the world. What is your own take on that? Is
that the way you see it?
MR. PRITCHARD: Well, let me suggest over the last
couple of years or so we've seen things that, starting in
September of '96 with the submarine incursion into South Korean
territory, followed by a more recent submarine incursion, et
cetera, that you would not think should be going on at this point
in time. With a North Korean economy that is in dire straits,
they ought to be engaged in a more productive and positive way.
They're not.
There's a new, as you're well aware, a new
administration in the Republic of Korea, headed by Kim dae-Jung,
who is actively engaging the North. Recently Hyundai Corporation
reached agreement with the North to conduct tour ships to Kunga
Mountain, providing in the neighborhood of $150 million in cash
over the next six years for the rights to develop that.
So you would expect that they would be more engaged on
the positive side; that has not happened. They've gone through a
transition over the last four years in terms of the death of Kim
il-Sung, the downturn in their economy, the fall of the Soviet
Union, the isolation of their traditional partners, the subsidies
that they get on trade. So there's a good deal of turmoil going
on at the same time that they maintain a good deal of priority
and emphasis on their own military structure. That's what's
keeping them afloat.
..........
Q Can I ask another Korea question? Can we go
back -- at some point -- what's the next step? Will there be
talks again in Geneva, for instance, or have be basically said
until we hear more about this site we will have no more
conversations there?
MR. PRITCHARD: No. We are actively pursuing -- one of
the things that at the end of the discussions in Yongbyon we
agreed we would continue this discussion -- we've got a target
date of probably around the first week in December. But there
are some details that have to be worked out -- exactly where this
is going to be held and whatnot. But we are actively pursuing
this and the North Koreans have received the very serious message
that we took to them.
Q Is Bill Perry going to go to North Korea and talk
to the North Koreans? Or what's the nature of his role that the
President mentioned?
MR. PRITCHARD: Right now, as the President indicated,
Dr. Perry will come on board to help conduct an overall review of
our North Korea policy, taking into stock kind of offset for
what's needed and going on -- details, talking with our allies in
South Korea and Japan. Kind of following exactly what the
President is doing now. He's come to Japan, he's talking with
the Prime Minister, he's going on to South Korea tomorrow to
discuss that. The Prime Minister recently had a state visit by
President Kim in South Korea. President Jiang Zemin is coming
here as well.
So you've got a series of these leaders talking and
they're talking very focused on the North Korean policy.
Q Thank you.
END 6:26 P.M. (L)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
