Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any report for you at this point. Governor Richardson met yesterday with the North Korean diplomats. The discussions continue today. We look forward to hearing from Governor Richardson about what the North Koreans say to him. We don't have a final report at this point.

QUESTION: On the Chinese --

QUESTION: Before you leave that, did you not get any kind of updated report --

MR. BOUCHER: We've kept in touch with him, but I don't have anything to report to you now.

QUESTION: The US ambassador to Moscow suggested last night that China could do more, Russia could do more, with North Korea; they have leverage. The President talked to the Chinese president so I I'm not going to -- I know you won't get into White House stuff, but could you say, as a matter of fact, what the administration would like China to do so far as North Korea's actions are concerned?

MR. BOUCHER: I would say what I've said here before, that we look to other governments to make clear to North Korea that they need to meet their obligations, that it's important to the entire international community. And I think that has been made clear. That's been made clear by individual governments, the Chinese and Russian Governments included. It's been made clear by the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors, 50 countries ranging from Angola to Cuba, Iran and India. It's been made clear by the statements that you're seeing today on North Korea's announcement of its intention to withdraw from the Nonproliferation Treaty, where, I think, every government that's spoken has expressed everything from condemnation to deploring it, to serious concern to various serious concern, and made absolutely clear that the Nonproliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of international nonproliferation efforts and that North Korea is putting itself at odds with the entire international community by taking this step.

So I think those points are being made in public. And to the extent that any of these governments, China included, have direct contacts with the North Koreans, we would expect them to be made in private, as well, and we know that they -- in many cases, that they are.

QUESTION: One last question, please. It was suggested in one of the newspapers this morning, maybe this is legal sophistry or maybe there's a point to it, that by abandoning the Treaty, China removes -- excuse me, North Korea removes itself from obligations under the Treaty. Is it the administration's position that quit the Treaty or don't quit the Treaty, you still have international obligations?

MR. BOUCHER: North Korea still has international obligations because those obligations stem not only from the Nonproliferation Treaty and the specific agreements that North Korea entered into with regard to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, but they have obligations on denuclearization of the peninsula, including, I think, inspections under their agreements between North Korea and South Korea.

They have obligations on denuclearization under other agreements that they've signed. As we pointed out the other day in the US-Japan-Korea communiqué, those agreements from 1991, '92, and subsequently form a body of -- a basis for the progress that people have made in their relations with North Korea. And you've seen statements by other governments, including, for example, the European Union a while back, that North Korea's relations with the outside world hinge on North Korea meeting its international obligations.

You've seen the statement, I think, of Foreign Minister Downer of Australia today saying that they are going to have talks with North Korea, but the only thing they are going to talk about is nonproliferation because any development in their relationship depends on North Korea meeting its obligations. So this continued defiance, pushing in the wrong direction by North Korea, is really a violation of their obligations, but it's also very harmful to North Korea's interests.

QUESTION: On the Australian mission, have you heard of any contact between here and Canberra on this -- it's supposed to be next week, I think.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what specific -- yeah, I don't know what specific contact we've had. We always talk to them about things like this, but I don't know specifically who's talked to whom.

QUESTION: And this -- but this is something you think is a good idea, this trip that they've planned?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, we haven't told people to go or not to go. We've told them if you go, if you have contacts, make clear to the North Koreans they need to meet their obligations, make clear to the North Koreans that they're flying in the face of the international community by taking steps like this, and make clear to the North Koreans that the international community is looking for a peaceful solution and continues to, and that they should take advantage of those opportunities.

Here we have a situation where the international community is offering ways to resolve this matter peacefully and by living up to international commitments, and North Korea continues to take steps in the wrong direction.

QUESTION: But as far as you know -- as far as you are aware of, you don't know of any specific contact with the Australians?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm assuming there are at different levels, but I don't know any of the specifics of what those might have been.

Sonni.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) point, the North Korean ambassador this morning explained their position on the 90-day rule and how the 90-day rule doesn't apply because it was a moratorium which they've suspended. Now they only have one more day. Does the United States Government accept -- not do you like it, but do you accept that as a legally correct position?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me -- well, let me answer that. I also think before we -- we sort of plunged right into the details of this and I want to take an opportunity also to give you some sense of our overall view of it.

On the specific issue of the 90 days, in 1993 North Korea suspended the effect of its withdrawal shortly before the required three-month period expired. It now asserts that its new withdrawal is effective immediately. We disagree. The Treaty does not provide for suspending and subsequently restarting the process of withdrawal. So we consider those obligations continuing.

QUESTION: Does not provide for what? Suspending?

MR. BOUCHER: For suspending and subsequently restarting the process of withdrawal.

QUESTION: Well, what about --

QUESTION: You're saying that you can't count the beginning of the 90 --

MR. BOUCHER: You can't count 89 days in '93 and then add one more in 2000, ten years later. It's a 90-day withdrawal period.

QUESTION: Right. But what did they do that interrupted the suspension? They began to adhere to the treaty? That could be.

MR. BOUCHER: No, they had been members of the Treaty. They, at that time, announced their withdrawal on a 90-day time scale, and before the expiration of the 90 days they decided not to withdraw.

QUESTION: So it's --

MR. BOUCHER: So that was that. That's over.

QUESTION: As far as you're concerned, they've got --

MR. BOUCHER: They're still under the original obligation of the Treaty.

QUESTION: Right. But they can change their minds again within 90 days to --

MR. BOUCHER: That would be the smart thing to do.

Let me, though, give you sort of the general statement on this. First of all, the United States condemns this action by North Korea. It is not totally unexpected. North Korea has shown its disdain for the Treaty for many years. It represents a further escalation of North Korea's defiance of the international consensus in support of a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons and this represents a serious challenge to the international nonproliferation regime.

We reject North Korea's claims that actions by the United States or the International Atomic Energy Agency could justify any actions like this. North Korea has been in violation of this treaty for many years. Today's announcement is another step in its confrontational approach to the international community and flies in the face of persistent calls on North Korea to comply with its obligations.

We call on the North Koreans to reverse this and other recent steps. We seek a peaceful resolution to these differences with the DPRK. We will intensify our consultations in cooperation with friends and allies in considering next steps in our diplomatic effort to resolve this situation.

That's where we are.

Joel.

QUESTION: With regard to what's gone on in the last week with North Korea and the situation --

MR. BOUCHER: Was it something I said?

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: -- privately, from what you're hearing from the North Koreans, are they, in any way, saying that just because we're located where we are, near other countries such as China, India and Pakistan that just fired off missiles, because the other countries are doing it, why can't we? Are you hearing these type of remarks from the Koreans?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- you've seen the Korean statement. You've seen the Korean public statement, including the press conference that they did. The international community, I think, has made clear, or the neighbors -- China, Russia, Japan, Korea -- people in this region have made clear how much emphasis they put on the Nonproliferation Treaty and meeting the commitments of that treaty. These are some of the governments in the world who have been the strongest supporters of the Nonproliferation Treaty.

Second of all, they've made clear how much importance they attach to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as one of the foundations for stability, but also as one of the foundations for any improvement in North Korea's relations with the world. So I don't think any of them -- anything that any of them have done would, in any way, justify steps like this from North Korea.

Okay. Same, or other?

QUESTION: Do you still maintain that the situation is not a crisis yet?

MR. BOUCHER: We are considering the situation very carefully. We are not using the word "crisis." We continue to look for a peaceful resolution of these issues. The international community is very much together on this and I think the international community will continue to make clear to North Korea they have to abide by their obligations. So we continue to pursue the course and we will continue to pursue the course that we've embarked upon.

QUESTION: Richard, did the Secretary meet yesterday with the South Korean presidential advisor? And if so, what was the outcome of that?

MR. BOUCHER: Was it yesterday he saw -- the day before yesterday when he was having meetings. And yes, he did see the Secretary. I think we had announced he would see Assistant Secretary Kelly, he would see Deputy Secretary Armitage. He saw Secretary Powell, as well. This is the South Korean national security advisor.

These meetings, including his meetings at the White House with his direct counterpart, Dr. Rice, were a continuation of the discussions we've been having with the South Koreans, a continuation of very close consultations we've been having with the South Koreans, and looking a little more, as we did in the trilateral meeting, looking a little more about how we move forward together.

Okay. Others? Charlie

QUESTION: Venezuela.

MR. BOUCHER: Venezuela? Okay.

QUESTION: On North Korea.

MR. BOUCHER: One more. Joel.

QUESTION: Is it appropriate that North Korea's turn to Governor Richardson, of course a former US ambassador, but he's also a Democrat, from an opposing political party -- do you think that was done specifically to cause trouble with your efforts to --

MR. BOUCHER: You'll have to ask them why they decided to talk to Governor Richardson. Certainly, we recognize the contacts that he's had in the past with North Korea. What matters is not who they say things to, but what they are saying. And so we're in close touch working closely with him. I'm glad he's able to take time from his schedule to do this. But the emphasis needs to be not on who they are talking to, but what are they saying, and I'm sure he'll give us a full report.

QUESTION: The North Korean ambassador to the UN this morning said that his understanding was that Bill Richardson invited the North Koreans. Is your understanding still, as yesterday, that actually they approached him?

MR. BOUCHER: That is my understanding, that they contacted him.

Sonni.

QUESTION: Ambassador Pak also said this morning that he had had no contact with Ambassador Negroponte and that he had never been approached in any form about talking. And I would like to ask whether there's been any letter or any contact to repeat from the podium, since he, the ambassador seemed to be making a distinction between what you say from the podium and what the US says in an official capacity. Will there be any attempt to write a letter or to make --

MR. BOUCHER: We have been in direct contact with the North Korean Mission at the United Nations. The channel, in many cases, goes to, I think, his deputy or one of the other officers at their mission. But we used that channel on Tuesday afternoon to convey directly to the North Koreans the position of the United States as expressed in the Japan-US-South Korean statement.

Mr. Ogata.

QUESTION: Do you have any plans or discussion inside the government to bring this issue to the United Nations Security Council at this point?

MR. BOUCHER: That's one of the issues that will have to be discussed. We're talking with other members of the Council, other nations who are concerned about this. We're talking to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Secretary, himself, has been making a number of phone calls on this subject.

He's talked to, among others, to Foreign Secretary Straw, Foreign Minister Villepin, Foreign Minister Kawaguchi, and I'm sure he'll be -- and Foreign Minister Papandreou, as well. And he'll be talking to, I'm sure, a number of others during the course of the next day or so, as well as the meeting this afternoon with Dr. El Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Sir.

QUESTION: It is reported that North Korea might consider the decision if the United States will resume the heavy oil supply again, it is said in Beijing or someplace last night.

MR. BOUCHER: There was that statement and then apparently it was somebody from the same mission that said no, that's not what we meant. So it's not very clear what they meant to say.

I think on the part of the United States, you know, we've -- it was North Korea that declared the Agreed Framework nullified and it was they who violated it. We're taking the steps that we think are necessary because of that.

QUESTION: Do you have any idea when the KEDO next board meeting takes place?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there's a date set. We've said it would be early in the year, but I don't think they have a date yet.

QUESTION: Can I try a continental shift and ask about Venezuela, please?

QUESTION: One more question on Korea.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay.

QUESTION: Has there been any sort of back-channel contact with North Korea, you know, unofficial contact, other than the meeting with Richardson, in which they might have conveyed some, some shift in their position?

MR. BOUCHER: We have our New York contact. You're all aware of the meetings with Richardson. You're all aware that other governments who know our views do have contacts. That's the whole universe as far as I know.

QUESTION: But has there been any indication through any of those contacts that North Korea perhaps might be willing to step down a bit?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think that's an almost immediate question. There's certainly nothing that I could report at this moment. But then let's remember whatever they may or may not be saying to Governor Richardson we'll hear further about later and don't have a report on that for you yet.

(...)
[End]