Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
State Department Noon Briefing, October 27, 2000
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Friday, October 27, 2000
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
Q: Staying on Asia, can you say whether the State Department has been
in touch with the North Koreans on the incursion incident where two US
planes strayed into North Korean territory?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the UN Command has been in touch with them. Let
me go through - okay, for those of you who don't know, there is an
exercise that is being conducted for the 39th time in South Korea
between the United States and South Korean militaries. Two US aircraft
accidentally entered North Korean airspace. The pilots were notified
of their error by US and Republic of Korea air force personnel. They
immediately returned to South Korean airspace. We notified North Korea
of the error, I think, through military authorities at Panmunjom.
Further details on this you can get from the Pentagon.
Q: There was a scathing Washington Post editorial today. "We were
amazed that the Secretary of State would allow herself to be
photographed smiling as 100,000 essentially enslaved laborers
performed for her and one of the world's most repressive dictators . .
. It's not an argument against engagement; it's an argument about
whether you engage without compromising your values." And they
concluded by saying, "Her silence on this repression - they argue she
didn't raise human rights enough, and then said, "Her silence
diminished US credibility not only on the issue of North Korea but on
human rights in general."
What is your response to that?
MR. BOUCHER: For family newspapers?
(Laughter.)
I mean, let me try to do this on a couple of levels. First of all, the
Secretary of State has spent her life studying communist systems. She
made quite clear in her remarks in North Korea that she was not
wearing rose-colored glasses. She understands what is going on. She
understands the place in history. She understands what happens to
these systems probably better than anybody in this building, and
certainly better than I do.
So I don't think one can pretend in any way that she didn't know --
that she doesn't understand the dynamics of this system and doesn't
understand as well, I think, the situation of ordinary people.
Granted, we were in meeting rooms and banquet halls, but we do in
advance - she did look at quite a lot of material on North Korea. She
understands quite clearly, I think, what goes on there, and not only
in the specific context but also in the historical context of the kind
of change that we have fought for and encouraged, that she has fought
for and encouraged, throughout the world.
So I don't think there is anybody that can question her credentials on
either understanding communist systems or human rights.
Second of all, for the first time in any discussions in the United
States-North Korean relationship, she had the opportunity this time at
the highest possible level to place human rights issues on our agenda
with the highest North Korean leaders. We have raised human rights
issues in every one of our meetings in the past and in every one of
our sessions that we have had in the past with them, but this was her
first opportunity - and she took it - to place human rights on the
agenda, the issue of meeting international human rights standards as
North Korea seeks to take a place in the world.
There are a great number of nations that are discussing issues and
relationships with North Korea, and we hope this is a message that
they will get from others as well.
Anyway, she raised it directly with Kim Jong Il, placed it clearly on
our agenda as we move forward. And that is the first time that has
been done, and I think that was important that she did that.
Finally, I think I would have to note that South Korean President Kim
Dae Jung, whose credentials on human rights are certainly
unassailable, has encouraged us to proceed, has encouraged us to
proceed in this manner, and we work extraordinarily closely with our
South Korean allies. The Secretary spent an hour and a half with him
yesterday. We coordinated with the South Koreans and the Japanese.
So, really, it is important to the United States to deal with the
security issues. The dangers of missiles, the dangers of nuclear
developments on the Peninsula, need to be dealt with, and we are
dealing with those. But I would make very clear the Secretary, at the
same time, placed human rights issues on the agenda at the highest
level with North Korea during her trip, and I think that is an
important development as well.
Q: In regard to missiles specifically, will there be next week a
meeting? Do you have any details as to whom - which Secretary is
going to do that, I've forgotten - but anyway, do you have any
details yet as to the meeting between the North Koreans and the United
States on missiles?
And, secondly, what was your eyewitness experience with regard to the
raising of the topic of missiles? Was this something that came from
the North Koreans first, or did it - was it spontaneous, or how do
you remember it coming about?
MR. BOUCHER: All right. The missile talks will take place next week.
We don't have the where and the exact when yet. But Assistant
Secretary Einhorn will lead them on our side.
To then work back into your second question, this is part of a process
that really stems from the visit when Vice Marshall Jo came to
Washington, when we heard some ideas and possible ways of dealing with
the missile issue that we thought were interesting. And the Secretary
went to North Korea in order to clarify those ideas. And she reached,
I think, a stage in her discussions which was quite positive, which
we've heard more about those ideas from the North Koreans. We've been
able to flesh out some of the details and make sure we understand
clearly what they might be prepared to do in these areas.
But there is more detail, still. I think we're not just taking the
generalities, or even the first or second level of detail that we were
able to achieve in Pyongyang, but we're looking for what you might
call the third and fourth levels of details to really understand these
concepts and how they might work in practice. And that is what the
Einhorn talks will try to do.
Q: Will the President's visit, to some extent, be dependent on the
outcome of these talks?
MR. BOUCHER: As long as I get "to some extent," yes. I mean, I can't
tell you exactly to what extent. That will be for the President to
decide. But I'm sure they will get together soon with the President
and discuss these issues and the kinds of proposals that we are
dealing with, the decisions that he may have to make down the road.
Whether - how exactly he decides to do this will depend on a number
of factors, but I'm sure the prospects or reality of what happens at
the Einhorn level will affect the outcome.
Q: Has the Secretary spoken to the President and briefed him at all
about her trip? Are there plans for her to visit the White House for a
more --
MR. BOUCHER: She spoke to the President - I don't even know what day
-- the night before last. No, on the way out of - after she left
North Korea. She left - she spoke to him, I think, from Seoul. And
she has also kept in touch with National Security Advisor Sandy Berger
and spoken to him a number of times. I think she has spoken or will
speak with Secretary Cohen, and Berger as well. They are putting
together a meeting with the President, but it is not put together yet.
Q: So at the time when she - when she was leaving North Korea, she
said she would make a report to the President. Is that the meeting
you're talking about as being set up now?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. That is the meeting that is being set up.
Q: And no date has been set for that yet?
MR. BOUCHER: No, not that I'm aware of. I'm not sure we announce those
anyway, but no date set at this point.
Q: Can you say whether there was movement on the US opening some sort
of diplomatic presence in North Korea?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't really say much more than we've said, than the
Secretary said in her press conferences in North Korea, that this was
discussed. Having liaison officers, in fact, is something that was
agreed some time ago with the North Koreans, but the timing and the
details remain to be settled, and they're not settled at this point.
Q: Can I just have one quick follow-up on North Korea? This issue of
the aircraft that accidentally entered the space - do you think it's
a non-issue at this point, or do you expect there to be diplomatic --
now, with this new warming of relations between the US, do you think
there will be any kind of talk through this building with the North
Koreans?
MR. BOUCHER: There may be contacts with them. I don't know for sure at
this point, but we have gone through the Panmunjom Channel. Our
military people have explained this was accidental, it was an error,
and we have notified North Korea of the error. So, I mean, these
things happen.
Q: Were they aware of it before we notified them, or was there a
notification how they became aware of it? Was the plane ever in
danger?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I don't think so. I mean, "in danger," I
don't think so. But whether they knew or not, I don't know.
Q: To go back to the subject of the human rights discussion, if I may,
you said that the Secretary put it on the agenda at the highest level.
Can you tell us something about the character of his response? I mean,
he has made jokes about the missiles, which people have taken --
nonetheless taken his comments seriously. What kind of response did
she get on that subject?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't - I mean, the jokes about the missiles
comment I'll let pass because I don't think that actually plays out
when you look at the facts. But, on the other hand, on human rights,
I'd say it was an initial exchange of views that we heard. We heard
their view. We placed it clearly on our agenda, made clear that we
thought international standards had to be - should be accepted, and
we started to hear back from them on their views. I think it's - but
it was really, at this stage, I would describe it as an initial
conversation rather than a detailed one.
Q: Changing the subject to Russia, a group of GOP senators is
threatening to subpoena documents related to the Gore-Chernomyrdin
deals if they're not submitted by, I believe, noon on Monday. Do you
know if the State Department plans to give those documents? I guess
they didn't do it this week when asked, and I wonder how it will play
out.
MR. BOUCHER: At this stage, we've dealt, I think, with the facts of
the matter. But as far as the documents involved, we do take these
requests seriously. We have a request under active consideration at
very senior levels in the State Department, but we don't have a
decision, an outcome, or an understanding yet.
Q: Back to Korea for just a moment. It occurred to me to ask: What has
happened? What evidence is there to support a real détente between
North Korea and South Korea, and especially between the United States
and North Korea, as far as incidents are concerned, how seriously they
are being taken, such as the two planes that we have talked about? Is
there evidence to say that détente is on?
MR. BOUCHER: It's not a word we're using. It's kind of old. What is
happening is that we have seen, you might say, a change in intention
and change in atmosphere that's been expressed between the North
Koreans and the South Koreans, and then between the United States and
North Korea.
What we're involved in is trying to translate that into the kind of
concrete steps that would deal with threats like the missile program,
threats to security in the region, threats to security on the
Peninsula, and actually achieve, for the benefit of the people who
live there, for the benefit of the people in the region, and for the
benefit of the whole world, the kind of security - a stable outcome
on security issues that can lead us into the rest of the issues that
would have to be dealt with as North Korea seeks to emerge into the
world.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:55 P.M.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
