• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

................

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the talks with the North Koreans in Geneva?

MR. FOLEY: I do. You're referring to the bilateral talks concerning the suspect underground site, I imagine, as opposed to the Four Party Talks, which concluded last week.

After both delegations - US and North Koreans - took part in those Four Party Talks, which ended on January 22, discussions on Kumchang-ni again took place, first at the DPRK mission on Saturday, and then at the US mission yesterday. There was also a brief meeting this morning in Geneva. In keeping with our general practice, when we're in the middle of negotiations, which we still are on this issue, I can't comment more specifically.

What I can say, though -- because I think you'll note that the North Koreans spoke out about this meeting afterwards - is that since the beginning of these negotiations last year, we have consistently pursued our single objective, which is to preserve the viability of the Agreed Framework, by satisfying fully our concerns about Kumchang-ni, by gaining access to the site.

As we've said in the past, differences do remain between the two sides, but we are negotiating seriously. Both sides continue to approach the negotiations in a problem-solving manner. It's also noteworthy that both sides have agreed to continue negotiations as soon as practical arrangements can be made. I have nothing to announce specifically in that regard, but we expect those arrangements to be finalized through the New York channel.

QUESTION: Do you expect them to remain private?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I have nothing beyond what I just said. I understand that the other delegation spoke to that effect, used that "p-word" that you just asked me about. I will have to just stick to what I just said, which is that both sides are negotiating seriously. They're bringing a problem-solving approach to this; and I would deem that as positive, though. But in terms of progress, I said that differences remain; and our bottom line remains the same - that access to the site is necessary to allay our concerns. When that has been achieved, then I can come before you and speak to you about progress.

QUESTION: Did the issue of food aid come up?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of whether that question came up. I don't have a full read-out in that regard. However, we have made clear, over the past several years, that we treat the question of food aid on its own merits, and that we have developed a remarkable record of dealing with appeals from the World Food Program for food assistance to North Korea, when that organization has judged that such assistance is necessary. We have consistently responded favorably to such appeals.

But as regards our discussions with the North Koreans about the suspect site, we have always made clear that the issue of access to the site is not one over which we're prepared to pay any form of compensation.

QUESTION: Jim, isn't there an outstanding appeal by the World Food Program?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to check that for you. I'm not aware that there is an outstanding appeal, but I'd be glad to look into it for you. The fact of the matter is that the World Food Program does do regular assessments of the situation. The situation remains dire in North Korea, given the dysfunctional nature of the economic system. I think no one can argue that there have been deep and significant food shortages over the last years. The World Food Program has made, as I said, periodic assessments and made, on that basis, periodic appeals to which we've responded positively in the past. But the precise answer to your question, I'd like to look into.

QUESTION: Did you say that there would be follow-on meetings between the US and North Korea on this disputed site?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I did.

QUESTION: Now, what do we know about that so far - any dates or venues in New York; is that correct?

MR. FOLEY: No, what I said is that they've agreed - both sides have agreed to meet again. The practical arrangements have to be made, and they'll be finalized through the New York channel. We'll let you know as soon as we have dates for the next round of those talks.

QUESTION: During the Four Party Talks, North Korea criticized the US and South Korea for defection issues --

MR. FOLEY: For what?

QUESTION: Defection. In these bilateral talks, did they raise this defection issue?

MR. FOLEY: I believe the issue did come up -- briefly -- and that the other parties to the talks indicated their belief that this was not a proper venue for raising such a topic.

QUESTION: Anything else you can say on the Four Party Talks while you're on that?

MR. FOLEY: If you have a question about them.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, did you make any - was there any positive movement in that set of talks?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we believe that the latest round of the Four Party Talks began to take modest, but in some sense significant, steps towards the ultimate goals of the talks. This is because the parties organized and held for the first time, subcommittee meetings to discuss, on the one hand, tension reduction on the Korean Peninsula, and secondly, the establishment of a new peace regime.

These two subcommittees met; they agreed on procedures to govern their work; they exchanged views related to their respective purposes. We believe that the fact that these sub-committees have begun their work is a good start in what, I would hasten to add, will be a lengthy and difficult process.

In terms of moving the ball forward on substance, I don't believe - well, certainly views were exchanged in those subcommittees. I don't believe that anyone expected that there would be substantive breakthroughs in that first meeting of those subcommittees. But I don't think we should underestimate the symbolic and practical importance or significance of the fact that, for the first time since the Korean War armistice, the parties have now begun to sit down at a table and engage in substantive talks designed to take concrete steps towards establishing a new peace regime in place of the armistice, and reducing tension on the Korean Peninsula.

QUESTION: Can you go a little bit further? I mean, was it just a matter of the sides sort of reading prepared papers, or was there an actual give-and-take?

MR. FOLEY: Each of the four parties was able not only to discuss issues of procedure, how they would work, -- because this was the first time the subcommittees did meet and did work. I would remind you parenthetically that it took quite some time to get to this point. Those of you who have been in this briefing room over the previous year - half of 1997 and 1998, since I've been here - know that it took a long time to establish an agenda, and establish the principle of the fact that the work would be broken into these two subcommittees, to deal with the separate issues of tension reduction and establishment of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. So that took a long time. This is the first time they met; and they discussed procedure: how they would operate during those meetings and in the future. They also began a discussion of substantive views.

I can't give you, because I don't know the answer, Carol, as to whether there was dialogue across the table in response to the various presentations. I can look into that point. As you know, Carol, we don't speak in a great amount of detail about what happens in those private negotiations, for obvious reasons. I don't consider that a major point, as to whether they exchanged views across the table or not. I suspect they did. But I would be happy to look into it for you.

QUESTION: You're saying this is the first time since 1953 there have been substantive talks on confidence-building measures and so forth?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, in any kind of formal way. For example, the two issues that they're discussing -- of the establishment of a new peace regime and tension reduction -- is something that are issues that were discussed in principle over the last year or so, but merely in an effort to get them formally placed on an agenda as a prelude to substantive negotiations on those subjects. I don't believe there have actually been any negotiations on those subjects heretofore.

QUESTION: Did the US or South Korean side make specific proposals vis-à-vis confidence-building or vis-à-vis the establishment of a peace regime, as you call it?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we believe that the second issue - establishment of a peace regime - probably is something that will take the longest to achieve, given the fact that we've been in this state, governed by the armistice, for almost going on five decades now; whereas the issues of tension reduction are issues that have to do with the daily interaction of the parties and involve steps that could be practicable, and steps that could be conceivably reached and implemented in a shorter period of time. I don't mean to prejudge the outcome of such negotiations, or to express optimism, because that is not yet warranted. What we're saying is the very fact that the four sides are formally beginning to grapple with these issues is symbolically important, and is the necessary predicate for reaching progress on those issues.

I can't tell you how long it's going to take for there to be tension reduction agreements. That's something we'll have to leave to the negotiations themselves.

(The briefing concluded at 2:10 P.M.)

[end of document]