Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

(...)

QUESTION: Okay. Do you have any -- you're probably pleased with what the unification minister of South Korea said, but in light of these stories about the US and South Korea not being on the same wavelength, he told North Korea to stop saber-rattling and take a "forward looking" step to ease the crisis. I assume that's something you welcome. And what about these reports there's something to align in policy between the U.S. and South Korea?

MR. BOUCHER: I think, you know, don't be misled by the newspapers, unfortunately. Watch what we've said, what we've done, what the Secretary has said, what the Chinese have said, what the South Koreans have said, what the Russians have said. Everybody has expressed their strong concern about the nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Everybody has made clear that they have been prepared to take steps in the relationships.

But let's remember how this happened. North Korea began a program some years ago to second-track a nuclear weapons program of nuclear enrichment.

While that was going on, the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Americans, and others making clear that we were prepared to move forward in the relationship. And unfortunately, despite direct talks in August with the Secretary of State, or was it July, late July, and then when Jim Kelly went in *September, the **South Koreans admitted to this program and have subsequently taken steps that violate their commitments under various international agreements.

So we're at this juncture with, I think, everybody's agreements with North Korea, including some of its international agreements having been violated and widespread, I think, expressions of concern.

We and the new South Korean Government, as we have with the old one, will coordinate very, very closely on this. We think that the South Korean Government has made clear they want North Korea to respond to the concerns that we share. I've seen a statement today from South Korea and China saying that they have common concerns about nuclear developments on the peninsula and want North Korea to respond.

So yeah, there are any number of statements, I think, that will lead you to the conclusion that this is a matter of concern to the entire international community. And as the Secretary said last Sunday on television, North Korea is isolating itself. We are going to continue to coordinate. We are going to continue to apply pressure and look for a peaceful and diplomatic solution. But there should be no doubt North Koreans are isolating themselves and they are already paying the price.

QUESTION: Richard, you said that everybody has said they're prepared to take steps. What have the Chinese done other than criticize weapons development in North Korea?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I think what I talked about was the benefits foregone; that various nations had been prepared to take steps with North Korea to improve their relationships, but that those steps are proving impossible because of North Korea's nuclear developments. And I think the Chinese have made clear that they are as concerned about nuclearization on the peninsula as anybody. We have not been asking people to impose any kind of economic sanctions.

QUESTION: I don't know if you said this while I was out, but when Kelly does go, have you said where he's going to go?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I haven't. And I don't have a date for you or exact place, but he'll go out to continue the process of consultations and working with our allies.

QUESTION: At a somewhat higher level than the TCOG? Is that -- I mean, is that the -- I'm just trying to figure out why, if you're having this meeting here with the usual suspects, why he would go there immediately afterwards.

MR. BOUCHER: I think it's an ongoing process of consultation. It gives us a chance to meet with people in capitals, in addition to the people who come here. We can see other people when we go out there.

QUESTION: And does that mean including people who would be in the new -- in the incoming South Korean administration?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, not having an itinerary, I don't have the meetings yet.

QUESTION: Well, he will go to Seoul.

MR. BOUCHER: I assume, yes, he will go to Seoul.

QUESTION: But does that mean --

MR. BOUCHER: I can't -- the trip's not set up yet. I can't tell you who he's going to be meeting with.

QUESTION: Well, the elections in Seoul. He touched on this himself. You may have been away. The party that won ran on a platform expressing some discontent with the relationship, North Korea aside. You know, sort of South Korea is the junior partner and the United States is the big brother and sort of runs things. And there was a suggestion maybe they want to address that situation and have a stronger voice for South Korea.

Is that something the State Department thinks maybe was just campaign talk or something that needs to be looked at?

MR. BOUCHER: I think, first of all, it's something that's probably exaggerated. Second of all, we have seen new governments come in, various allied and friendly governments and allied and friendly countries, and we would expect to be able to work with this government. It's a new government. It's a new generation of leadership in South Korea. We very much look forward to working with them. We've already had some initial contacts. The President, I believe, talked on the phone with the new president, or the president-elect at this moment -- I am not sure -- the president-elect at this moment.

And we really do look forward to working with them. We think that the United States and South Korea have an alliance that's based on a shared history, shared values, shared interests, and we've worked and cooperated very closely to advance those shared interests.

Okay, we'll start in the back.

QUESTION: We can change the subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Talking about -- any comments about this clash between the U.S. forces and Pakistani forces in Pakistan border?

QUESTION: North Korea (inaudible).

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let's do one more on North Korea.

QUESTION: That's fine.

QUESTION: Are you open to the suggestion from the Russians to have a Russia-China states the U.S. approach on North Korea?

MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't seen that suggestion so I don't have any comment at this point. Certainly we have, I think, made it clear that we are interested in coordinating with other governments and we're looking for a peaceful solution. And to the extent that anything might further that, we would be willing to consider it.

QUESTION: Can I ask one more?

MR. BOUCHER: He's got one more back there, too.

QUESTION: Richard, you have not -- you're not going to cut off food aid because that would be against humanitarian purposes of the United States Government and the world community. You are cutting off oil and it gets pretty cold in North Korea. Furthermore, North Korea said that the reason they were returning to the nuclearization program was because the oil was cut off.

Do you have any comment on that?

MR. BOUCHER: I think there are several things to note here and I think we've noted them all before. The first is that the oil shipments were stopped because they were being carried out under an Agreed Framework, which North Korea itself said was nullified.

Second of all, that the prospect of electricity from these reactors, or this reactor, restarting this reactor, is a very, very small percentage -- I think it's two or three percent of potential electricity. This is not a viable source of power for the North and they would do much better by remaining in the agreement.

Third of all, the nuclear enrichment program began years ago, not in this administration because of anything this administration did, but even in the previous administration. So saying that they have to pursue these nuclear developments because of this, that or the other that happened in the last month or the last year, it just doesn't coincide with the facts.

QUESTION: Could I, while we're on North Korea --

MR. BOUCHER: We're trying to get off it, but sure.

QUESTION: Well, one of the papers used as their hook for a North Korea story today food, food aid. Could you just briefly, if you like, tell us where things stand so far as food shipments?

MR. BOUCHER: The United States has been the largest donor of food aid to the programs that supply food to the North Korean people. We would expect to continue to supply food for those programs. When we have our new budgets, we'll consider what the amounts might be in the coming year. But at the same time, we've made clear that we do intend to continue to provide food and we don't intend to curtail food for political reasons.

We have also made clear that we are concerned about the monitoring of food shipments. Any food we provide, we would want to be able to work with the World Food Program and the North Koreans to make sure it gets to the people who deserve it and who need it. And we've asked questions about the monitoring of food aid that have not been responded to by the North Koreans.

We have also made clear there are tremendous other demands on our food aid budgets. But all that said, we do intend to continue to provide food assistance and would hope to be able to work out arrangements to monitor it properly.

QUESTION: Since we're all interested in communication or the lack thereof, are you able to say how we made that point to North Korea?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we did it through the donors. I'm not sure if we've done it directly. I will have to double-check on that and see.

QUESTION: Richard, are you saying that the World Food Program distributes food without proper monitoring?

MR. BOUCHER: The World Food Program has fairly extensive monitoring. But we still have some serious concerns about the monitoring and some of the stories we've heard. So questions of monitoring and access need to be addressed, we think.

QUESTION: Richard, it wasn't quite clear from what you said. I wonder if you can clarify. Is monitoring, adequate monitoring, a condition for the continuation of food related to North Korea or is it just -- or is it really a separate issue that you want to --

MR. BOUCHER: As we consider what to do in coming years, how much to give as we consider all the competing demands, certainly one of the factors we have to take into account is how confident are we that our food is reaching people who need it. So it's a serious concern that needs to be addressed. Leave it at that.

You had one more?

QUESTION: When Secretary Kelly goes to South Korea, will he be prepared to later acknowledge the Kim Jong-il authority as one part of the bold --

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, the bold approach was what Jim Kelly laid out for the North Koreans in *September and said we have been prepared to take that approach, but we can't as long as you're pursuing nuclear enrichment. So let's not get confused over that, again, based on some of the way it's been reported. This is an approach we had been prepared to take, but he made very clear we can't take as long as these nuclear programs exist.

The Secretary made clear over the weekend that we're not interested in appeasement. We're not interested in rushing out to say can we give you something more to stop something you should have stopped already. So we had been prepared to move forward, but on the basis of respect for previous agreements.

Okay. Now, were you going to go to North Korea or change the subject?

QUESTION: Well actually, I want to ask question. The president-elect in the South called on U.S. to engage with North Korea, not to isolate. Are you considering the engagement policy as a way out in the future on this?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, we've had direct discussions with North Korea. The Secretary of State met with the North Korean foreign minister during the summer. Jim Kelly went out there in *September. Remember, first Assistant Secretary Kelly was going to go in July, but then there was a ship incident which soured the atmosphere for any kind of talks and we had to postpone it.

We went back and said we're willing to reschedule. Unfortunately, what he had to do when he went out there was to say we were prepared to do these things, but can't as long as you continue these programs. And North acknowledged -- North Korea acknowledged those programs. So I would say there are channels open, there are ways of communicating. But at this point, we've made very clear that we're not prepared to appease, we're not prepared to pay again for agreements that should have been respected in the first place.

QUESTION: Well, I wasn't going to actually raise this but since you've brought it up in the answer to the question before, is that -- is what you said in your last question about the -- when you mentioned the way it's been reported, is that the end of the issue for the State Department, or have you contacted the outlet specifically to complain about the way comments have been played on the front pages of --

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, I think we always try to clarify here and make sure that everybody understands the facts.

QUESTION: Are you satisfied now that you've gotten your point out?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't go around writing letters all the time, no. I made the point, I think.

QUESTION: A quick question. The clarification that what you called some papers said is a tailored containment policy toward North Korea.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, the Secretary talked about that over the weekend. There's no policy or paper with a title like that. We don't have any particular objection to the phrase. But just look at the strategy that we've been following. Look at the course that we've been following, as laid out by the Secretary and as carried out by the Secretary and Assistant Secretary Kelly in cooperation with others. We're consulting closely with friends and allies, those who have a strong interest in the region. We are making clear, all of us, to North Korea that their expectations as far as the rest of the world goes, their expectations of benefits, will not be met if North Korea continues to pursue nuclear programs on the peninsula.

We are maintaining, I think, a consistent pressure on North Korea to make clear to them that we're not going to appease this kind of action, we're not going to pay again. You know, all the things I've been saying. We're going to maintain a consistent stance and that's the strategy that we've been following in conjunction with friends and allies. And the foundation of that is very close consultations with friends and allies, and somebody thinks and pointed out that, you know, Jim Kelly's been out there four or five times in the last few months. And that will continue.

(...)