Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

QUESTION: Maybe you could start us off on the talks by telling us who meets who when
and --

MR. BOUCHER: Everybody meets everybody else. Do you have a particular portion of the world you'd like to talk about?

QUESTION: I pass. Let someone else ask.

QUESTION: He's talking about the TCOG. Can you give us -- how does --

QUESTION: I'm trying to ask when do the Koreans come in, who do they see, when do the Japanese come in, is there a trilateral meeting, does it wind up tomorrow, will there be a statement? I don't know what you're attempting -- what you're hoping to accomplish.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let's just start out on that instead of talks generally.

QUESTION: Well --

MR. BOUCHER: The Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group meetings begin this afternoon with a series of bilateral discussions. The participants will meet with each other this afternoon. I can't remember if we're seeing the Japanese first or the South Koreans first, but that will be held during the course of the afternoon. And then the plenary meeting, meaning all the three nations together, will be tomorrow morning.

As we've said before, Assistant Secretary James Kelly, our Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, is leading the U.S. delegation, Deputy Foreign Minister Lee is heading the South Korean delegation, and Director General Yabunaka is heading the Japanese delegation.

The three delegations are here to discuss further coordination of our policies in response to recent North Korean nuclear developments and other issues. We'll, of course, be listening and carefully considering whatever our allies have to say about the next steps and working with them together on how to move forward towards what we hope would be a peaceful resolution of these problems on the peninsula.

Now, does that kind of cover the -- I mean, that's not the details of exactly -- I can't tell you who's meeting at 1 o'clock and 3 o'clock, but generally that's the answer, this afternoon.

QUESTION: Can I ask a weedy organizational question? Is there --

QUESTION: Weedy?

QUESTION: Weedy. Weedy. Getting into the weeds. Is there no three-way at all, even informal, kind of like -- today?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, that's my understanding. There's no three-way today.

QUESTION: No, not even like an informal reception or anything like that? Nothing? Because I understood that there was. Anyway, maybe there isn't.

MR. BOUCHER: I will check if there's anything informal, any kind of social activity that might involve all the delegations. But in terms of formal meetings, it's bilateral today and then trilateral tomorrow.

QUESTION: Well, what do you think of this proposal that the United States give security assurances to North Korea short of a non-aggression pact?

MR. BOUCHER: There have been a lot of press reporting on this, that, or the other proposals that may or may not be made. I think at this point, it's important for us to talk to our allies. As I said, we look forward to listening to them and talking about how we can proceed in next steps.

All of us share the goal of peaceful resolution of the problems created by North Korea's nuclear programs on the peninsula and the steps that North Korea has taken recently. So we will be discussing together how to move forward and whatever ideas people want to bring to the table will get careful discussion and consideration.

Betsy.

QUESTION: Richard, is the US bringing ideas to the table?

MR. BOUCHER: We always have issues that we want to address, yeah.

QUESTION: On the issue of North Korea and coming into compliance again with IAEA --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, certainly we are bringing the ideas that we've expressed publicly, which is that the issue is not non-aggression. The issue is compliance. It's verifiable and visible and prompt dismantlement of the North Korean nuclear enrichment program. That has been our position all along. Others -- I think you've noted at the South Korean statements last week. Others have said that, too, in their view, is where it all starts. And we will be looking at how to push for that and how to try to obtain North Korean compliance with those requirements.

QUESTION: But you're not bringing new ideas to the table?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't -- I thought I started this by saying, yeah, we would be discussing our views on how to achieve that.

QUESTION: But I thought you said that these were issues that you had already discussed publicly, and my question was were you bringing any new ideas to --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- it's not simple to say yes or no, I guess, if you want that fine a tune on it. The process is one of ongoing discussion and consultations with our friends and allies. Remember, we've met with these people a half a dozen times, I would guess, since last fall, since last October. We have had formal meetings several times. I think the last one might have been November, maybe December. And so this is an ongoing process. We meet with our allies and friends in a variety of fora, whether it's travel by us, travel by them, international meetings or these trilateral meetings. So it's an ongoing process of developing ideas and looking for ways to address these issues.

All of us have addressed this in very clear terms so far, I think. We've all made clear North Korea has to visibly dismantle these programs. We've all made clear that the reception that North Korea will get, the benefits that North Korea will get from the international community, hinge on their willingness to dismantle these programs. We have all made clear, as the International Atomic Energy Agency Board did today in a very strong statement from a very significant group of countries, that North Korea has to stop violating its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

So there are a lot of things we have been doing together within that framework how to continue to proceed that, continue to pursue those goals, continue to work to move forward. Yes, we will be discussing with them how to do that and I'm sure we'll bring our ideas as they will bring theirs. Are we bringing new ideas to break out of the basic policy? No. We have all agreed on the basic policy. The question is how to pursue it.

Howard.

QUESTION: Richard, it sounded like Dr. El Baradei in his press conference just a few minutes ago was explicitly endorsing the US approach, this sequential idea that first North Korea must cease and desist, and then negotiations can occur. Is that your reading of what he said?

MR. BOUCHER: I wasn't watching. I was worried about what I was going to say to you.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: The U.S. approach, I think, has been based on the fact that we had an agreement with North Korea. North Korea's actions on its nuclear enrichment program is not just a violation of the Agreed Framework, but is also a violation of denuclearization agreements with South Korea and its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

And so what the International Atomic Energy Agency Board focused on this morning was their recent actions by North Korea that prevent verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. And what we -- first of all, we deplored the actions that North Korea has taken. The Board called upon North Korea to cooperate urgently, to reestablish monitoring and verification of all its nuclear material; made clear that unless the North Koreans take all necessary steps to allow the Agency to implement the required measures, the North Koreans will be in further noncompliance with its Safeguard Agreement.

So we have welcomed that call from the International Atomic Energy Agency. We think it's very important that the whole Board, a group of countries, 35 countries that represent a broad cross-section of the international community, the whole Board agreed on this unanimously by consensus. This is countries from not only a significant number of members of the Security Council, but also countries from Australia to Malaysia, from Iran to Cuba.

So you've got a very strong statement there that makes clear that North Korea does need to bring itself back into compliance with its obligations that it's violated.

QUESTION: If I can follow up, just to be clear, in the face of this reported South Korean proposal which seems to suggest somehow some simultaneous things happening, i.e., North Korea backs away at the same time that the United States agrees to start talking about some kind of non-aggression agreement, is it correct to say that the United States is still sticking to its sequential approach, that you're not going to deal with North Korea on any level until they stop and back up on the nuclear --

MR. BOUCHER: I think the answer is that there have been too many versions in the press out there of what the South Koreans may or may not have in mind, and that while they all seem to be variations on a theme, I think we owe it to them as our allies and friends, we owe it to them as our partners in this endeavor, to listen to them, to talk to them, to work with them on these ideas more directly. And if there's more to say on it, we'll prefer to say it tomorrow after we've had a chance to really talk to them.

QUESTION: Richard, along those lines, though. Outside of the press, you guys -- outside of the press reporting, which you have obviously been reading diligently, have you -- have the South Koreans presented this alleged proposal to you guys in any forum, or are you expecting them to do that today or tomorrow?

MR. BOUCHER: We expect all the participants in this meeting -- the Japanese, the South Koreans, as well as ourselves -- to bring forward whatever ideas they have about how to move forward. And so I would expect the South Koreans to do it in that forum.

We obviously have regular contact with the South Koreans through our Embassy and elsewhere, but I think the point is that we need a chance to really sit down and talk to them and talk to the Japanese together about how we proceed.

QUESTION: But you're not going into this meeting blind as to what the South Koreans might be coming --

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Okay, just one last thing. Has Kelly's itinerary been fixed yet or is that still up in the air?

MR. BOUCHER: For his travel? I don't think it has, but let me double-check. No, don't have it. Don't have it set at this point.

QUESTION: But it'll be after this week, after --

MR. BOUCHER: Later. In the next week or so, I think I would say at this point.

Jonathan.

QUESTION: Richard, Article 6 of the NPT requires the United States to pursue negotiations in good faith on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. When is the United States going to come into compliance with this requirement?

MR. BOUCHER: Is this a question that arises today, just for the fun of it, or --

QUESTION: We're talking about complying with the NPT.

MR. BOUCHER: I mean, you want to change the subject? I mean, what does that have to do with North Korea's obvious and complete violation of its commitments? What does that have to do with North Korea developing nuclear enrichment programs, pulling out cameras, kicking out monitors and otherwise reactivating their reactor? And I think if you look at the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva -- I'm sure your colleagues in Reuters probably do follow what goes on there -- I think that's where this compliance, this provision of international law is being studied and worked on.

QUESTION: Well, then can I try something else and see if the US adheres to that? You keep mentioning the '94 --

MR. BOUCHER: What, are you going to -- is this a test of the United States commitments internationally?

QUESTION: No, it's --

MR. BOUCHER: What's the issue here? Is it whether the United States complies with broad international commitments given over 50 years? The answer is yes, we do, in a variety of ways and a variety of fora.

QUESTION: The issue --

MR. BOUCHER: The issue right now is --

QUESTION: I know the issue is North Korea --

MR. BOUCHER: -- what to do about a country that has kicked out monitors, pulled out cameras, and violated its agreements not to develop nuclear weapons.

QUESTION: The issue seems to be whether the US will simply declaim and deplore and denounce or whether the US is prepared to do something about it besides rhetoric.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, that's different.

QUESTION: And so, for instance, you're talking favorably about the '94 agreement because, indeed, it requires, compels North Korea to do certain things. Does that mean the Bush administration approves of the '94 agreement?

MR. BOUCHER: Barry, this administration has always -- had always said, until North Korea took these actions and North Korea said the agreement was nullified, we had always made clear that we were prepared to abide by our part of the agreement if North Korea did the same. That had been something that I've stated here a dozen times, without any question.

QUESTION: Now let me ask you something else, one last thing for now. The undercurrent of all this material has been some threats, so let me ask you straight out. Is the US under threat from North Korea? Clearly, South Korea is and Japan is because their missiles can carry that far. Clearly, the US troops are. Is the US itself under threat? Are these talks being held under the shadow of some threat from North Korea to attack the United States? You've already said, Powell has said, we have no intention of attacking them. Are you facing an attack or the prospect of an attack?

MR. BOUCHER: Barry, United States' interests involve the United States, our territory, our contiguous territory, our states which are not contiguous, our interests in trade, in prosperity, in democracy, in freedom around the world, our interests with our allies, our troops overseas. So you can't say, apart from this, this, this, this and this, do we have any interests? The answer is yes. We have a whole panoply of interests in a peaceful outcome to this. We have a whole panoply of interests that are involved in stability and peace on the Korean peninsula. Those interests have been expressed over 50 years or more, including the events of the early 1950s when we fought there for the -- with the United Nations. And those interests remain.

QUESTION: And you have a proliferation interest. What I'm leading up to is South Korea is the one that's under the gun, so I'm wondering why South Korea doesn't get to take the lead and it has suggested a way to try to get this settled. Now, that doesn't mean it's not going to be done that way, but right now everything that's been said in South Korea is being dismissed, you know, sort of tongue in cheek as press reports. I mean, these are more than press reports. This is the position of a government that faces somebody right across its border with a nuclear weapons program.

MR. BOUCHER: Barry, the United States, Japan and South Korea, as well as other governments, have a very strong interest in what goes on on the peninsula. As you correctly point out, the South Korean people, who live under threat of these developments in North Korea, have a very personal and strong interest, as we all do, frankly. Nobody is rejecting anything that's come out of South Korea. I've just declined to get into a back-and-forth with you before we have a chance to treat this -- to treat these ideas seriously, to sit down seriously with our partners in this matter and to discuss them seriously and not treat them as items to be bandied about in press briefings before we have a chance to talk to the people most directly involved with these issues.

QUESTION: The IAEA mentioned that the possible reporting of the issue to the Security Council. Is the United States does have a date in mind to go to the Security Council or do you prefer to deal with this in the region?

MR. BOUCHER: I think the Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency made clear that North Korea needs to cooperate as a matter of urgency with it and to comply with its obligations. And urgent is what we mean. Urgent is what we all said together. They need to respond now. They need to come into compliance or otherwise we, meaning the Board of the International Atomic Energy, would take additional steps which could include, obviously, referring the matter to the Security Council. So they would report the issue to the Security Council when they thought it appropriate.

QUESTION: If that happens, is there a date for that?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there's any particular date at this moment, but certainly urgent means urgent. We would expect to see the North Koreans comply with this obligation on an urgent basis.

Betsy.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Richard, we've gone back and forth over the last few weeks and the last time I looked, the US position was that the Bush administration would not negotiate with North Korea. Since words are sometimes important, does that allow for any kind of talking, discussion or use of other words besides "negotiate" with the North Koreans to solve the crisis diplomatically?

MR. BOUCHER: I would, I think, make clear that our policy has been that we don't look for -- we're not looking to renegotiate the issue. We're not looking to make some other bargain, to make some other payment for North Korea to come into compliance with its obligations. We do believe that the solution here lies in North Korea visibly and verifiably dismantling these programs. We've made that clear from the start, and I think been very consistent.

The Secretary of State has also been clear that there are channels to communicate, there are people talking to the North Koreans. There are, obviously, channels that they can communicate with us if they want to. But at this point, we have not seen North Korea do anything to indicate they are going to visibly and verifiably dismantle this program. In fact, what we have seen over the last few weeks are a series of steps that unilaterally undermine and violate other obligations that they have to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that is what the Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency had to deal with this morning.

QUESTION: Excuse me. Despite what I think have been pretty consistent denials from you and other people, there's another report today, or another report has surfaced today, that you guys are going to withhold food aid to North Korea. Realizing that you're probably going to say the position hasn't changed and that's not true, what's the status of the food donations right now to the WFP in response to their current appeal?

MR. BOUCHER: I may be able to get you more on this later. I think, though, we have addressed it before and you'll see that what we continue to say is in approximately the same terms. We have been a consistently large donor to the World Food Program appeals for North Korea. We have not conditioned this and do not intend to condition that on political factors. We intend to continue to be a large donor.

Exactly how much we can give in any given year depends on the budgetary situation and we are in a position right now waiting for the appropriation so that we can make whatever commitments we will make for this year. Looking at that situation now and seeing if there's not a way to, well, to define further, but we have to have the appropriation. But I think our intention is to continue to support these programs.

Now, we have also made clear that there are a lot of demands on the resources we have and that we want to make sure that the food gets to people who need it. And we have been concerned about monitoring and verification, distribution in North Korea, and that remains a continuing issue and obviously a factor that we have to consider as we look at how to go forward.

QUESTION: So, if you say you're waiting for the appropriation, have you already floated it up to the Hill or to the OMB, some kind of a figure for how much -- I mean, I presume you're still working on your budget proposal for the upcoming year, right?

MR. BOUCHER: No, this is the 2003 budget. It's still up on the Hill, hasn't been passed. We're under a continuing resolution now.

QUESTION: I suppose in such programs, there's always pilferage, there's always skimming. Has it gotten worse? Is there a point where the US says, hey, this stuff isn't really getting to the people who need it and let's hold it back for a while and straighten this monitoring situation up a bit? Is that possible?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think there's a point at which you say we need to know that this can be verified, we need to know the people who deserve this food are going to get this food, we need to know that there have been improvements in the monitoring situation. And that's what we want to see.

QUESTION: Let me try. Are you saying that there won't be any withholding or not -- withholdings won't work. There won't be any not giving of assistance because of the nuclear situation, but there could be modifications in the amount that you give from what you've given in previous years because of these concerns about the distribution? Is that what you're saying?

MR. BOUCHER: I think it's -- I can't define it any more right now because our intention is to continue to be a major donor. We certainly want to see the monitoring questions resolved. If they're not resolved, that would become a factor in determining how to allocate our resources among the many worthy donors. But political factors, nuclear programs, are not the issue here. But we do intend to continue to be a major donor.

Elise.

QUESTION: Even though political considerations aren't a factor, has your concern over the monitoring and the verification grown as this political crisis has grown? Has your concern grown in the last few months?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, it's not because of any political factors or other developments. Our concerns are based on the inability, we think, in all cases to verify that people are getting the food who needs it. We don't think we're the only ones. Some of the NGOs, some of the other donors, have similar concerns that need to be addressed.

Howard.

QUESTION: With regard to KEDO and the continued construction of the light water reactors, could you clarify what is the US position right now as to whether or not that construction should continue? And if it should continue, why should it continue since the North Koreans have clearly said that the '94 agreement doesn't exist any more?

MR. BOUCHER: The US position is this is an important issue that we need to discuss with our allies and friends and that needs to be discussed among the other members of the KEDO Board. I'm not sure when they will have an upcoming meeting, but I expect this would be one of the questions they would take up when they do.

QUESTION: So you don't want to say what the position is at this point?

MR. BOUCHER: Our position is that we need to discuss this with our friends and allies.

QUESTION: And why wouldn't you be pressing for an urgent meeting on this topic?

MR. BOUCHER: Our position is this is an issue we need to discuss with our friends and allies in these various fora. I'm sure there will be meeting soon where we can do that, not only with our allies like Japan and South Korea in these meetings in the next day or two, but also in terms of the KEDO Board sometime early in this year.

Okay, let's see. Betsy was changing the topic. Is that okay? No, Matt's going to continue.

QUESTION: Just another thing. The last time we talked about this, this came up and I can't -- the last time it had been expressly -- these concerns had been expressed to the North Koreans was, I think, in August or something. Do you know if they've been expressed more recently than that? Now, I realize the year is still quite young, but -- and if there's been a response?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think -- there has not been a response. We did express our concerns about monitoring and verification of food deliveries to the North Koreans in late August to their mission in the United Nations. I'm not sure if we've reiterated it since then, but there's not been a response from North Korea.

Okay, on this. Terri.

QUESTION: Has the situation deteriorated, though? Because I think what people are asking, this could be just coincidental, a time period with the nuclear program. But is there any way to know whether the situation with monitoring has deteriorated, has gotten worse, since you did express it before the recent escalation of the nuclear crisis?

MR. BOUCHER: I think these have been ongoing concerns that have existed about the programs before and that throughout this year we've started to see these reports and focus on them. But as I said, the food issues are the food issues. Our intention is to be a major donor, to continue to be a major donor. We are concerned about monitoring and we want to see those issues resolved.

Okay, same topic, Mark.

QUESTION: El Baradei said that if North Korea were to come into compliance, its economic and security concerns could be addressed, and he also mentioned a "roadmap." Does this reflect the American position, and can you elaborate on this?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't. I'm afraid, as I pointed out to one of your colleagues, I was not watching the press conference that just happened, so I don't have a comment on everything that was said. I think the board certainly made its position very, very clear that North Korea needs to bring itself urgently into compliance and to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that is what the Board of the Agency wants to see.

Okay. You had one in there.

QUESTION: Yeah, I was just wondering, with the bilateral and then trilateral talks today and tomorrow, at what point is China brought into these discussions or apprised of what went on and at what level of that plenary?

MR. BOUCHER: We have ongoing consultations with the Chinese and the Russians through our embassies, and so a lot of this material is an ongoing discussion where we may have talks here, but we would also expect to continue the discussion with others.

I'm trying to think. Under Secretary Bolton would expect to be in China on his trip later this month. I'm not sure at this point whether Assistant Secretary Kelly will have a chance to go there next week, or not.

Okay. Joel.

QUESTION: With respect to North Korea, is there any plan to get power from either China or South Korea to diminish the need for these nuclear reactors? And also, have you -- in talking with both the Russians and the Chinese, well, the North Koreans are, it seems they are building up their military even more. Is this saber-rattling a definite concern?

MR. BOUCHER: On the issue of power, I think North Korea already gets a considerable amount of oil and power from China and from others. We've pointed out that any restart to these reactors is a virtually negligible contribution to the electricity supply. It's not going to warm North Korean houses this winter. It's not going to light their schools during the winter. I think the percentage was something like a potential of two or three percent of the energy needs and that's certainly not any significant benefit to restarting this reactor in terms of the losses of North Korea's reputation and ability to get other benefits by its interaction with the international community.

In terms of the conventional forces, which I guess you're talking about on the peninsula, we've always made clear that's a very significant issue for us and that is one of the issues that we were willing to sit down and have serious discussions with the North Koreans on, in terms of the approach we had been prepared to take before we saw this program develop and, therefore, before this made it impossible to proceed on other fronts.

QUESTION: My last one. There has been some talk bandied about, which I'm sure you're familiar with. It seems to be gaining some kind of currency although I'm not sure how serious the circles it's being talked about is in. But have you -- are you aware of these suggestions of the U.S. pull its troops out of South Korea, 30-some thousand troops out of South Korea? And if you are, has that been given any serious credence in the administration? And would it be a violation of treaty obligations? Would the suggestion be a violation --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not quite sure what we're talking about.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, those things thing. I think we made clear we don't have any intention of doing that.