27 April 1999
TRANSCRIPT: APRIL 27 BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON NORTH KOREA TALKS
(Talks resulted in "frank and serious discussion") (1600) Washington -- The fifth plenary session of the Korea Four Party Talks resulted in "a great deal of frank and serious discussion" of difficult issues relating to the reduction of tensions on the Korean Peninsula, according to a senior State Department official speaking on background April 27. One of the more sensitive issues discussed by the four parties -- the United States, China (PRC), the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) -- was the presence of military troops on the Korean Peninsula, according to the official. "The North Korean side has consistently insisted that the fundamental root cause of tension on the Korean Peninsula is the presence of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula," the official said. However, the official added, "I pointed out to my colleagues that in fact in 1950 when U.S. forces had been reduced to about 80 military advisers it didn't seem to prevent the Korean War, and that in subsequent years, as U.S. forces were withdrawn from their peak levels, we did not observe tensions being reduced." "These historic facts suggested to me that perhaps there wasn't such a clear relationship between these two things," the official continued. Following is a transcript of the background briefing: (begin transcript) TRANSCRIPT Senior State Department Official Background Briefing April 27, 1999 SENIOR OFFICIAL: I am happy to answer any leftover questions. I know that Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan has already spoken with you at some length, so perhaps I'll just take the questions. QUESTION: As far as the bilateral talks, was a date for the visit to the underground site given? Was that discussed? SENIOR OFFICIAL: Yes a date was discussed and agreed on and we will be announcing that very shortly. QUESTION: Can you give any more details? SENIOR OFFICIAL: It'll be announced in Washington. QUESTION: Kim mentioned something about May ... SENIOR OFFICIAL: That's the right month. QUESTION: What kind of matters will be discussed tomorrow morning with the North Koreans? SENIOR OFFICIAL: We had a lot of things to cover in terms of some of the details relating to Kumchang-ni, and therefore some of the other topics that ordinarily come up during our bilateral discussions ran out of time, so we are just going to use the opportunity to finish a few odds and ends, but this is very routine. QUESTION: Can you elaborate please on these differences that exist in the subcommittees, I mean what are the major points of difference, can you explain? SENIOR OFFICIAL: Well I believe that Vice Minister Kim has probably given you a pretty full perspective, but I would characterize it the following way, that the North Korean side has consistently insisted that the fundamental root cause of tension on the Korean Peninsula is the presence of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula. And during this round, I pointed out to my colleagues that in fact in 1950 when U.S. forces had been reduced to about 80 military advisers it didn't seem to prevent the Korean War, and that in subsequent years, as U.S. forces were withdrawn from their peak levels, we did not observe tensions being reduced, and that these historic facts suggested to me that perhaps there wasn't such a clear relationship between these two things. We, on the other hand, feel that there are indeed military causes of tensions on the Korean Peninsula, that all military forces may contribute to these military tensions. I pointed out the very large number of North Korean soldiers, 1.2 million, a number that has steadily grown over the years, and that has been deployed further and further forward close to the DMZ. And that this was an important topic, and that we had proposed that we try to reduce tensions step by step, through tension reduction measures that would eventually build up sufficient confidence that more difficult measures might be contemplated. QUESTION: Did you discuss with North Korea about the change in status of U.S. forces in Korea? SENIOR OFFICIAL: No. In fact the question of a change in status of U.S. forces in Korea did not come up on any side. QUESTION: Was there any progress at all on these tension reduction measures? It says in the statement there was an exchange of views about potential measures. Did you actually get any concrete measures agreed upon? SENIOR OFFICIAL: The answer is we were unable to agree on any concrete measures in this round. However, specific measures were discussed. They were discussed in detail. They were described and defended. And if you think of this as a process, surely that is a necessary step towards ultimately agreeing. So I am quite satisfied that we are at a point where agreements are at least feasible. Beyond that I believe that there was a great deal of frank and serious discussion about the range of issues that are regarded as being some of the most difficult. And although, as I said, we were unable to reach any specific agreements, I felt that the overall quality of the discussion was quite good. And I indicated this was even true on the first day and was certainly something that continued throughout this round, so I feel that the familiarity that all four parties are acquiring is useful and is permitting this to occur. I also feel that the very generous support and hospitality of the Swiss government has been a critical element, and in that regard I'd like to note that the Swiss government has itself suggested a couple of very useful ideas. One was for the humanitarian corridor that had been suggested previously. And the second is for a seminar-like arrangement whereby the parties might hear some ideas from the Swiss about verification and even visit a Swiss military facility as sort of test run for such visits. I think these are useful contributions. I don't know whether they will be adopted or not, but they will be studied. QUESTION: Could you elaborate on the reaction to the Swiss proposals? SENIOR OFFICIAL: Well I will leave that to the Swiss government to do, but they have provided us with some detail on paper, and that detail is being studied by all four parties. QUESTION: Has there been any priority associated with any of these measures such as urgency to measures like exercise notification, or possibly the easiest thing might be just mutual visitations? SENIOR OFFICIAL: Well, you are quite right that although I take note that you have changed your adjective to most urgent to easiest and that is in that very spirit that we are looking at tension reduction measures. We are trying to find some that are the easiest for the four parties to adopt in order to just put a few bricks in place that we can start building up a structure. And the ones you have mentioned are clearly among the easiest that could be considered, but although there has been good discussion on tension reduction measures like that, we haven't agreed on any yet. QUESTION: So no positive feedback? Is that a correct characterization? SENIOR OFFICIAL: Well, if the question is intended to be "are we very, very close to agreement on any of them," I think I have to say let's wait and see. They are being discussed, they are being looked at, seriously. That is about what you would want to see. None of them has been rejected outright. QUESTION: How about the other subcommittee dealing with the replacement of the Armistice? What progress is being made there? SENIOR OFFICIAL: That subcommittee has been a little bit snarled up in the question of whether or not there should be an agenda that is specified according to North Korea's exclusive wishes. And I don't think it would be a surprise to any of you that that hasn't proven to be an acceptable starting point. Other delegations have suggested a somewhat more mechanical approach, trying to look at the structure of peace agreements, and build upon models, and this is an approach that may actually prove to have some merit, but to be honest with you, that subcommittee has not made a lot of progress. QUESTION: Do you have any idea how many more rounds it would take to get some kind of concrete progress. Are we talking about months, years, decades? SENIOR OFFICIAL: Well I don't think that from where we sit right now we can see clearly to the end. It is obviously going to be a long process. It took us a full cycle of meetings, that is one year's worth of meetings, just to clear up all of the various procedural issues and get to the point where in this round we had what I think were much more substantive discussions. But if the past is any guide, I think it's going to take many rounds, and I suppose that by that we ought to be looking in terms of probably a year or more. QUESTION: There are important anniversaries coming up, next year and 2003. In fact just yesterday was the 45th anniversary of the first Geneva talks on Vietnam and Korea. So are these historical benchmarks, are the delegates sensitive to this, or is it in your view something that could focus the mind? SENIOR OFFICIAL: Thank you for that suggestion. Anything that focuses my mind is helpful. Thanks a lot. (end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
