11 August 1999
Transcript: August 9 Background Briefing on Korea Four-Party Talks
(Talks have begun to move into "more substantive areas") (1620) The Four-Party Talks between the United States, China, North Korea, and South Korea on reducing tensions on the Korean Peninsula and putting a formal end to the Korean War "have begun to move into more substantive areas," according to a senior State Department official speaking on background. "We haven't been able to reach a string of detailed agreements yet because in the broadest sense these are still early sessions. But we certainly have gone beyond procedures and formalities and we have gotten down into some of the harder areas," the official said in an August 9 briefing for reporters in Geneva. According to the official, the subcommittee on tension reduction has "a fairly long menu of proposals that have now been introduced in one session or another." "Those proposals include some simple military-related confidence building measures, for instance a communications channel, or exchange of observers," the official said. "They also include some proposals that have been made by the Swiss government, for instance, what we might term a seminar to study confidence building through some third country experiences so that there wouldn't be any direct implication to any one party in the process." "From our point of view all of these proposals have merit," the official continued. The potential effects of a missile program in North Korea are likely to remain a topic of discussion, according to the official. "The Four-Party talks were convened in order to replace the Armistice. And it was recognized by all parties that in order to achieve a meaningful permanent peace regime we needed to make efforts to reduce tensions on the peninsula," the official said. "Something like a missile program in North Korea is not connected to the Armistice but could conceivably be connected to the reduction of tensions." The United States and North Korea plan to have bilateral meetings to discuss ways to improve relations between the two countries, according to the official. "My intention is to try to build upon those concepts that have already been sketched out by Dr. Perry when he visited Pyongyang, and I'm sure that the whole range of subjects necessary for that kind of improvement of relations will come up, although perhaps in the limited time available we will have to do it in shorthand," the official said. Following is a transcript of the briefing: (begin transcript) U.S. Delegation to the Four-Party Talks Senior State Department Official Background Briefing following the Sixth Plenary Geneva, Switzerland August 9, 1999 SENIOR OFFICIAL: Hello everyone. You know I am a little bit pressed for time because we have an obligation to meet with the North Koreans immediately after this, and I would kind of like to end that before we are too deeply into tomorrow. This was a rather long session you have observed. And I am sure it tried the patience of our Swiss hosts, but they have been most kind in letting us use these facilities. Of course Ambassador Qian just did a magnificent job of chairing this long conference and our interpreters had to work for an unprecedentedly long stretch of time without any break at all. I think that all of us are a little fatigued by the process. But I would like to call your attention to the fact that in this Four-Party process, as we noted even last time, we have begun to move into more substantive areas. These substantive discussions are more complicated and they take more time. And in a sense, I can say that that is a good sign that something is happening. We haven't been able to reach a string of detailed agreements yet because in the broadest sense these are still early sessions. But we certainly have gone beyond procedures and formalities and we have gotten down into some of the harder areas. I have agreed to do my best to answer some questions, so I would like to just move on to that, but I am going to ask my colleague to recognize you one at a time. QUESTION: Could you please clarify and refer to some of the points of the new proposal, especially during the tension reduction, and in your assessment of it? SENIOR OFFICIAL: In the subcommittee on tension reduction we have a fairly long menu of proposals that have now been introduced in one session or another and all of them are still on the table. Those proposals include some simple military related confidence building measures, for instance a communications channel, or exchange of observers. These are quite familiar to people who have been following this. They also include some proposals that have been made by the Swiss government, for instance, what we might term a seminar to study confidence building through some third country experiences so that there wouldn't be any direct implication to any one party in the process. From our point of view all of these proposals have merit. QUESTION: The Chinese Ambassador just said that they put forward an initiative for the peace agreement. What is the reaction of the United States to that? SENIOR OFFICIAL: I'm not sure that it would be accurate to describe the Chinese draft as a draft of a peace agreement. It is more a draft statement of some principles that have been previously discussed and are apparently shared in common by all four parties. And so I think that, to characterize the intent behind the proposal, it was to take those areas of agreement and see if we couldn't build upon them a bit further. I have a great deal of respect for the creativity of the proposal and we'll be looking at it to see whether there are some things there that we like, but quite obviously this is something that we'll have to discuss further within the Four-Party structure. QUESTION: During this session, Mr. Kim Gye-Gwan said it's extremely difficult to accept the Perry proposals because they required stopping missile launches. That was a very clear statement to the press. Do you have any comment to make? SENIOR OFFICIAL: No, this is not a subject that came up during the four party talks and if he is making statements about that subject to the press that's his business. QUESTION: Can you confirm that it is North Korea that won't agree to a specific date or even an estimated date for the next round of plenaries? Did they say in the talks why they won't agree to a date? Is there anything you can do in your bilateral talks that might help persuade them to agree to a date for the next round of talks? SENIOR OFFICIAL: Yes, it was the North Korean delegation which declined to agree to specific dates. But this isn't the first time that this has occurred. As to the reasons that they say that they cannot agree at this time, I am sure that you have already received that right from Vice Foreign Minister Kim, so I don't need to elaborate on that. I myself believe that our experience in the Four-Party talks has been that we have been able to agree on further meetings fairly consistently. I have every expectation that we will do so again. In this particular round we examined some possible dates. We all discussed and recognized that there was value in having these meetings occur at regular intervals, roughly every quarter. It turned out that there were not dates available in November for the conference facilities. And so it is my own expectation that come December we will all be here doing this again. QUESTION: Do you regard this as a suspension of the talks? SENIOR OFFICIAL: No, I do not regard this as a suspension. QUESTION: What will you discuss with the North Koreans tonight in your bilateral meeting? SENIOR OFFICIAL: We will be having further discussions about the ways in which we might improve our bilateral relations. My intention is to try to build upon those concepts that have already been sketched out by Dr. Perry when he visited Pyongyang, and I'm sure that the whole range of subjects necessary for that kind of improvement of relations will come up, although perhaps in the limited time available we will have to do it in shorthand. QUESTION: The Chinese and North Koreans say that discussion of missile launches is outside of the Four-Party Talks framework. Is that a realistic viewpoint. What is the U.S. reaction to that argument? SENIOR OFFICIAL: I'm glad you asked that because in fact it probably bears repeating that the Four-Party talks were convened in order to replace the Armistice. And it was recognized by all parties that in order to achieve a meaningful permanent peace regime we needed to make efforts to reduce tensions on the peninsula. Now something like a missile program in North Korea is not connected to the Armistice but could conceivably be connected to the reduction of tensions. And so it is not possible for me to give you a clear yes or no on that. I think that we have other discussions about missiles, bilateral U.S.-DPRK discussions about missiles that have occurred in the past and that we expect to be able to schedule for the future as well. So I wouldn't take it completely off the table, but my expectation is that this is going to be a topic that we are going to be pursuing bilaterally with North Korea. There is a connection between the missile program and the continuation of tensions on the Korean peninsula. Thank you. (end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
