• 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

MR. FOLEY: Would you prefer not to have a briefing today, Matt?

QUESTION: No, I want to have one.

MR. FOLEY: Okay, we can wrap this up very quickly if you want.

QUESTION: The North/South Korean talks in Beijing apparently collapsed with the North Koreans making demands that the South Koreans couldn't accept. I wondered if you have any comment?

MR. FOLEY: As we've consistently observed, a dialogue between North and South Korea is key to achieving progress on the Korean Peninsula. Talks at the vice-ministerial level began June 22 in Beijing and continued until today, July 2, ending without result. We hope that the talks can resume soon. We strongly support President Kim Dae-Jung's policy of engaging the North in direct dialogue in order to seek improved ties and enhance peace and stability. I'd have to refer you to the South Korean Government for any further readout on the Beijing talks and, of course, President Kim is here in Washington today and I'm sure we'll be in a position to amplify on the results of those talks.

QUESTION: Are there still signs that the North Koreans are preparing a missile test?

MR. FOLEY: Were you here yesterday?

QUESTION: No.

MR. FOLEY: Because we went over that. As I said, I can't get into our intelligence on the matter, but we've had long-standing concerns about the possibility of a second missile test and we made it crystal clear to the North Koreans that there will be serious consequences indeed if there is a further missile test.

QUESTION: My question basically is have things advanced in the past 24 hours?

MR. FOLEY: Since yesterday? No - not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Can you say anything today perhaps on US concerns about South Korea's missile programs?

MR. FOLEY: Were you here yesterday?

QUESTION: I was here and I heard you yesterday, but has there been any advance on that --

MR. FOLEY: What do you mean by advance? I answered -

QUESTION: Are you able to say anything today that you weren't able to say yesterday?

MR. FOLEY: I gave repeated answers to that question yesterday and I made clear and I can go over it again - ad nauseum, if you want -- the fact that we cooperate with the South Koreans on their defense requirements. We are sympathetic to their defense requirements. We also have non-proliferation objectives that we pursue with them in the region and globally. I have nothing to say beyond what I said yesterday.

QUESTION: A similar question - the North Koreans, after the UN talks, said something to the effect that there would be very severe consequences if the South Koreans didn't withdraw from disputed waters and do you - are you advising the South Koreans to take this -

MR. FOLEY: I'm not familiar with that statement. What I can tell you though, as you know, I reported yesterday, and it was in the press, that some North Korean fishing vessels had crossed that separation line - I believe it was yesterday -- although there were no warships involved, and they withdrew back across that line after a number of hours. These were fishing vessels. What I can tell you is that general officer talks, hosted by the UN command, were held at Panmunjom today, July 2. The talks concluded without specific results, but another meeting has been proposed. There's no date for it yet, but we believe there are chances that there will indeed be another meeting. I believe that the United Nations command in Korea has issued a statement at the conclusion of those talks. We continue to welcome DPRK participation in the general officers talks, which are aimed at reducing tensions and preventing future incidents involving the Northern Limit Line. I'd have to refer you to the UN command for any further details.

QUESTION: On the other North Korea subject -- the arrest of the American - anything new on that? Or are still in the same -

MR. FOLEY: I don't have anything new on that. In other words, our protecting power in North Korea - Sweden - has not yet had consular access. We are hopeful that access will be acquired by the Swedes. Let's remember, the North Koreans did provide notification to Sweden of this arrest or detention, and we've not concluded that there will not be consular access provided to the Swedes. It is true though, but it hasn't happened yet.

QUESTION: Does this - I seem to remember that the convention calls for rapid access. Does this now fall into the category of not rapid access?

MR. FOLEY: What I can tell you is that we have an interim consular agreement with North Korea -- I don't know if this is a mirthful subject, Jonathan -- but under the interim consular agreement between the US and the DPRK, notification of the arrest of an American citizen is supposed to take place within four days of the arrest. I believe they more or less made that. I think it was about five days, but the notification took place. Consular visitation is supposed to be permitted within two days after a request is made by the Swedish protecting power on behalf of the US.

I think it's right to say that technically those terms have not been met, but we understand that this is a very remote area of North Korea, access is difficult, so we're not willing to conclude at this point that the issue or the realization of consular access is not going to happen. We were hopeful that the Swedish charge will be permitted to travel to Rajin - is the name of the area - and be granted consular access. Obviously, we are - as you're asking every day - we're also very seized of the matter and we continue to be in touch with the Swedes in order to find out the prospects for consular access, and will be in a position to report to you when it happens and to report to you if we have changed our assessment of the prospects for access.

QUESTION: Is that the free trade area in the northeast?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to confirm that for you.

QUESTION: On North Korea, I believe Dr. Perry mentioned back in May when he was in North Korea that if the North Koreans curtailed their missile and nuclear programs, that they could see a broad expansion in its relations with the US. What does that mean? Does that mean easing sanctions, normalizing diplomatic relations?

MR. FOLEY: You put it in a very, very kind and gentle way, Kelly, and nevertheless we have been very consistent in not discussing publicly the details of former Secretary Perry's review. I would have to refer you to the statement he made, I think in Seoul, when he left North Korea, in which he spoke to some degree about the general nature of the ideas that he discussed with the North Koreans. Indeed he did confirm in general terms what you said, which is that he talked about - with the North Koreans - prospects for a really qualitatively improved relationship between North Korea and the United States, between North Korea and our allies, between North Korea and the international community, which is predicated upon North Korea's addressing our concerns in the missile and the nuclear area. Beyond that, though, we have not gone into any kind of detail publicly. Obviously, this is a very important diplomatic issue, and a very sensitive one, and we're going to await the completion of Dr. Perry's report before being in a position to say any more.

QUESTION: Even though President Kim apparently talked about some of the proposals in an interview?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I can only say that from our perspective, we've been very consistent in not discussing publicly -- I don't believe that President Kim laid out in the kind of specificity you're drawing me towards. I think he made some general comments about Dr. Perry's mission.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: Well, you know, he's not far from here. He's just up the street or across town, and maybe he could do better at this podium than the Deputy Spokesman.

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

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

QUESTION: Forgive me if I go back just for a second to North Korea. One criticism of the policy has been that too often bad or provocative behavior on the part of North Korea gets rewarded and that perhaps talk of preparing for another missile test and stuff of this sort is just the North Koreans trying to sort of up the ante and get concessions from the US and South Korea, etc. How do you respond to that kind of criticism of US policy towards North Korea?

MR. FOLEY: We don't think we've rewarded North Korea at all. The fact of the matter is that the Agreed Framework, for example, has frozen North Korea's development - North Korea's nuclear capabilities. That's in the United States' interest; that's a program that they were working on very aggressively in the early 1990's that has been frozen and that's an enormous plus to the security of the United States and to our friends in the region.

Kelly, you're absolutely right - there was all kinds of speculation that comes up every few months on the issue of food aid, but the fact is that we have resisted any attempts to make food aid part of a negotiating package - a price for this or that. We have been very consistent in asserting the principle that we do provide food aid but we provide it on the basis on humanitarian need, based on assessments of competent international food authorities.

So I think the premise is just not true, and the fact is that we tend to look at the question you raise from the opposite perspective which is that were the North Koreans to proceed with another missile test there would be negative consequences. And without spelling those out, I think the North Koreans understand that negative consequences are not positive consequences and that it would behoove them not to engage in a second missile test.

At the same time, Dr. Perry has had discussions with North Korean leaders about the possibility for a better relationship but one in which North Korea has the prospect of good relations with the international community including the United States, but in which North Korea has addressed our concerns about missiles and nuclear weapons developments. That's a plus for everyone if those concerns can be successfully addressed. I think there's no reason to look at it from the angle that you are describing. We have an overriding obligation to protect the security of the United States and our friends in the region as well, and that is what is motivating our policy in North Korea and elsewhere.

And now, Matt -- you didn't see that slight of hand - this has been in front of me all along. Extradition requests from the US Government to the Philippine Government are made under the US-Philippine Extradition Treaty - bet you didn't know that - which has been in effect since 1996. Any requests for extradition would be handled in a normal matter through diplomatic channels. The Department of Justice should be contacted for further details.

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

Thank you

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

[end of document]