10 January 2003
North Korean NPT Withdrawal Called "Provocative Step"
(State Department Deputy Spokesman Philip Reeker at Foreign Press Center) (5560) The decision of North Korea to withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is clearly not a positive development and is "another provocative step by the North Koreans in their policy of nuclear brinkmanship that violates international norms and only serves just to further isolate North Korea," State Department Deputy Spokesman Philip Reeker told journalists January 10 at a Washington Foreign Press Center briefing. "Pyongyang is not listening to the consistent message from its neighbors in the region, from others in the international community that they need to reverse course and completely abandon, to dismantle visibly, verifiably, the nuclear weapons program and come into full compliance with its international commitment." he said. Of the 187 nations that have ratified the NPT, North Korea is the first to withdraw from the pact. The objective of the treaty, ratified in 1970, is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and further the goal of achieving total nuclear disarmament. The treaty establishes a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which conducts inspections to verify compliance. North Korea expelled IAEA inspectors in December. Responding to questions about a possible war with Iraq, Reeker stressed that while war is not inevitable and that armed efforts are a last resort, Iraq must comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. The U.N. resolution clearly states, he said, that "the onus is on Iraq to come clean, to comply fully, to disarm from its weapons of mass destruction so that we can remove the very real threat that it poses not only to its own people in Iraq but to its friends and neighbors and indeed to the region and the world as a whole." "We don't want to have to resort to any sort of military action" added Reeker, but "are prepared to do so, whether with the full backing of the international community or like-minded nations." Reeker stated that the international community is trying to help the Iraqi people, but is serious about holding Iraq to its obligations. "There's a choice to be made, and Iraq can make a strategic decision to reverse course, as it were; to change the way they've approached the international community for so many years now, and that would result in considerably better opportunities for the Iraqi people certainly." (begin transcript) Briefing for Foreign Media Philip Reeker, Deputy Spokesman Department of State Foreign Press Center Briefing Washington, DC January 10, 2003 MR. DENIG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. We are delighted to be able to welcome today Philip Reeker, the Deputy Spokesman of the Department of State, for the first of his regular briefings to the foreign media in the new year. I would just remind you that when we get to the question-and-answer period, please use the microphones and identify both yourself and your media organization. Phil. MR. REEKER: Great. Thanks, Paul. Happy New Year, everybody. It's good to be back. And I'm not trying to do my Dean Martin impersonation to brief with a glass in my hand, but my New Year's resolution is to drink more water. Dehydration is always an issue for spokespeople. I don't have any particular announcement this morning. It's a busy time, as no doubt you've seen, a busy day for briefings. Ambassador Boucher, of course, briefed just a short time ago and I think he's probably still on C-SPAN as we speak. The Secretary was out with a few remarks after his meeting with Dr. ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They just met a short time ago so I would just call your attention to those remarks to make sure you have transcripts of anything so you hear it from the source, that is, Secretary Powell. Why don't I just go ahead and start with your questions. We can move from forward back. This lady was the first with her hand up so please, go ahead. QUESTION: (Inaudible) CTE, Canada Television. I have two questions on Canada. First, Senator Clinton made some remarks earlier during the week where she criticized the northern border. She called it porous. Does the State Department share these views? And secondly, our Defense Minister met with Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday and he said there could be Canadian support for a possible war on Iraq even though the -- even though there wouldn't be a UN Security Council resolution, meaning there could be support without UN support. What kind of contribution are you expecting from Canada? MR. REEKER: It's a question that we've gotten often and we like to let other countries speak for themselves. As you know, the President has been quite clear that he seeks a peaceful resolution to the situation in Iraq. There is an opportunity for that. The international community wants a peaceful resolution; that is, to see Iraq peacefully disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction, as called for in the UN Security Council resolution. That's why the President took it to the international community. He went to the United Nations and the Security Council passed that resolution unanimously. So we've been quite clear that armed efforts are a last resort and it's up to Iraq to comply with its obligations to the international community. We've heard some updates from the inspectors yesterday and we'll continue to support them in every way we can in their inspection process. We'll hear from them formally on the 27th of January. But we are, of course, talking to many other countries because we have found after a dozen years of dealing with Saddam Hussein that it's important to make clear that our diplomacy is backed by the credible threat of force, and indeed it is. And so while we seek a peaceful resolution to this, and we don't want to have to resort to any sort of military action, we are prepared to do so, whether with the full backing of the international community or likeminded nations. So, obviously, Canada is one of the countries that we've talked to. We've spoken about that. We talk to Canada and many other friends and allies to be prepared for every contingency, every possibility. So the international community is firm. The resolution states clearly that the onus is on Iraq to come clean and to comply fully, to disarm from its weapons of mass destruction so that we can remove the very real threat that it poses not only to its own people in Iraq but to its friends and neighbors and, indeed, to the region and the world as a whole. On your earlier question, I have not seen Senator Clinton's remarks, so I couldn't address them specifically. We work very closely with Canada on border security issues. We've talked about that for some time. September 11th illustrated to all of us the difficulties in knowing exactly who's in our country and we're working on doing that so that the people that are here for legitimate purposes are not endangered by those that come to do us harm. Canada is an important partner in that effort. This is in the interest of both United States and Canada. So while the Department of State works on diplomacy, obviously other agencies of the US Government share a lot of information and work with Canada. That includes the new Department of Homeland Security, which will be doing a lot on that, to make sure that our borders are secure but our doors remain open -- particularly to our Canadian friends -- to all people coming to the United States with legitimate purposes, but that we can safely secure ourselves and those visiting our country against the threat that terrorists pose. QUESTION: Dmitry Kirsanov, Russian News Agency Tass. Philip, I have a rather simple technical question. After what happened today with North Korea, do we plan any specific consultations and meetings with the Russian officials? Maybe John Bolton is going there while he is in the region or something like that? MR. REEKER: I can tell you that Secretary Powell spoke with Foreign Minister Ivanov today which, as you know, they do quite frequently. I believe they did speak about North Korea. I know they have in the past. We've seen statements from Russia, as well as many other countries, expressing grave concerns, indeed condemnation, over North Korean actions. The international community has been very much knitted up. They're making clear that North Korea has put itself in this position and that North Korea has an obligation to come into compliance with their various commitments to the international community. In terms of travel to Russia, I don't think I'm aware of any specific trips. Obviously, we're in close contact through our embassies, both the Russian Embassy here in Washington as well as our Embassy in Moscow. Under Secretary Bolton, who is traveling in Asia, will be back and then take another trip to Asia to a couple of stops. Let me just double-check so I can make sure to give you the correct spots. Let's see. Under Secretary John Bolton will be in China from the 19th to the 21st of January, South Korea from the 21st to the 23rd, and Japan from the 23rd to the 25th. I don't know at this point if any other stops would be added on to that or if anybody else may be traveling in the near future to Moscow. But we'll keep checking on that and we certainly do keep in touch with our Russian colleagues on these matters. Tony. QUESTION: Anthony Sipher with Yomiuri Shimbun. Phil, can you give us an update on Bolton's travels at the moment? MR. REEKER: You know, I don't have a particular readout. I've been able to catch Under Secretary Bolton on a couple of short TV appearances, and I know he's been reporting in regularly. But he has been traveling in Southeast Asia recently and I'm sorry I can't even give you the specifics, but I know he's due back shortly and then he'll be going out on the second Asia trip that I just outlined. Yes, Sonia, and then I'll come back to the gentleman here. QUESTION: Thank you. Sonia Schott, Television Venezuela. Why did the State Department change its mind referring to proposal of the Group of Friends of Venezuela? And I know that Brazil disagreed with the idea of early elections. But you're still for this idea of early election as a possible solution in Venezuela? And there is another one. President -- MR. REEKER: Why don't we do one at a time. (Laughter). MR. REEKER: I don't know, by this time on Friday, it's hard for me to keep up with one question, let alone a chain of them. I don't think the State Department has changed our approach on Venezuela at all. We still very much and consistently have supported efforts to reach a peaceful, democratic, constitutional and electoral solution to the ongoing political crisis in Venezuela. That's been our position for some time, and to that end, we have felt that the efforts led by the Organization of American States under Mr. Gaviria, the Secretary General of that organization, is the best opportunity for the Venezuelan people to move forward in this crisis. What we talked about in recent days was further supporting that effort and the concept of a Friends of Venezuela, or maybe it's better to say a Friends of Secretary General Gaviria's effort, would be reinforcing, doing everything we can and continuing to come together to support that effort because this situation in Venezuela is of great concern to many of us -- it's gone on for a long time -- and that includes Brazil. Together with Brazil and a number of other countries in the region, we are actively engaged, and we've talked about this for some time with the Secretary General, in his efforts to facilitate a dialogue between the Government of Venezuela and the opposition there. We're trying to develop a group that can strengthen his efforts in Caracas. And I think he returned to Caracas last week. Our Ambassador in Caracas, Mr. Shapiro, has met with him a couple of times, just as he and his colleagues at our Embassy have met with Venezuelan Government officials as well as opposition figures and others throughout Venezuela to continue encouraging them to take advantage of this opportunity. This is really a situation that is of enormous cost to the Venezuelan people and we are urging -- again, as we have consistently -- all Venezuelans, to work closely with the OAS, with Secretary General Gaviria, and advance a solution that is a Venezuelan solution to this crisis. So we really think that's the best opportunity at a national reconciliation. QUESTION: What about the early elections? MR. REEKER: We've looked to an electoral solution, a constitutional, democratic, peaceful, electoral solution. That's something that the OAS can help the Venezuelans come to an agreement on. I've read of a couple of possibilities within the framework of the Venezuelan constitution. Those are the things that they need to discuss, the way they need to work forward to find a solution for this, because we can't solve this; the Venezuelan people have to solve this. But what we can do is use the international organization, in this case the OAS, as well as all those countries that consider themselves friends of Venezuela, have an interest in seeing this crisis come to conclusion because it affects the Venezuelan people and we care about that. QUESTION: And my second question. President Chavez warned today to the commanders of garrisons to be ready to recover by force, if necessary, the food industry and so on, everything what is on strike. Do you have any comment on that? MR. REEKER: Well, again, I would just go back to what I said. Our policy all along has been to support a peaceful resolution to this ongoing crisis -- through peaceful means, through dialogue, and a constitutional, democratic manner. And that's what we're supporting and that's what the OAS mission is about. The lady here. QUESTION: Rehat (inaudible) from Turkish Television, TRT. Today in Ankara, a protocol has been signed by the prime minister concerning the use of ports and bases. Do you think it's a step forward for the Bush administration that -- do they expect more requests to be accepted by the Turkish Government? MR. REEKER: I guess I would rather let Turkey speak for itself in terms of what Turkey wants to say about any potential contribution toward Iraq. We have a very long and strong relationship, friendship with Turkey and we continue to consult closely with Turkey, as well as all our other friends and allies, over the threat factor that Iraq poses to the region. And Turkey is quite aware of that threat given the geographic realities of here. And, of course, we all agree that Iraq needs to comply with Resolution 1441 from the UN Security Council. As I said earlier to your colleague, war is not inevitable, but we've encouraged Turkey and other countries in the region to consider all possibilities, to think about the important issues at hand. But I just can't, you know, analyze or categorize any specific thing that countries want to do. QUESTION: Are you happy with the agreement reached in Ankara? MR. REEKER: I don't have any details on specific agreements in Ankara, and you might want to check with the Defense Department if there was something specifically done today. QUESTION: Just to follow up, a state minister with a group in businessmen are now in Baghdad for talks with the Iraqis. So how do you assess, you know, in this moment a visit by a Turkish state minister and a group of businessmen? What do you think? MR. REEKER: I don't know anything about it particularly, but I think we've always said that any time anybody has reason or opportunity to reinforce the message to Iraq, whether it's to Iraqi Government officials or to the Iraqi people, that the international community is trying, first of all, to help the Iraqi people but is serious about holding the Iraqi regime to its commitments, and that is the obligation to disarm, as called for under the Security Council resolution, to come clean about its weapons of mass destruction programs, and so that's a message that anybody can continue to take to Iraq. There's a choice to be made and Iraq can make a strategic decision to reverse course, as it were, to change the way they've approached the international community for so many years now. And that would result in considerably better opportunities for the Iraqi people, certainly. Next, sir. In the back and we'll come forward. QUESTION: Thank you, Phil. And two quick questions back on Latin America -- Peru. A Peruvian court has reversed some or maybe all anti-terror laws last week that had been used for fighting rebel movements in that country in the '90s. That decision could bring new trials for many people in prison at this time on terror charges and maybe free many of them. Have the US administration have any concern about that ruling? MR. REEKER: You know, I recall something about that last week, and to be perfectly honest with you, I don't recall all the facts about that, so I would have to check and see if we've looked into that, what it really meant, what the facts were, and if we had anything to say about it. So I'm sorry, I just don't have anything for you on that today, but I can certainly check with our Western Hemisphere Affairs Bureau or the other bureaus that might be involved in that. Let's follow up afterwards. QUESTION: The second question, Phil. And it's about the Peruvian Third Commission. As you know the Department of State has said last week that they are going to release all the documents that were requested by that Commission pretty soon, according to your words. And do you have any update about that? MR. REEKER: I don't have much of an update. I know that we've given some documents to Peru and I know that we want to continue to be forthcoming in that process. I just couldn't tell you exactly where that stands, what is still pending, and how timing might go on these things. It's always try as one might, it's difficult to predict exactly. So that's another one I'm afraid I have to disappoint you on and promise to keep checking on it and if there's something new to report, get back to you. Up here. QUESTION: Thanks, Phil. Gianpiero Grimaldi, Italian News Agency, ANSA. On Iraq, today the President Prodi and Mr. Solana said in different words that it would be difficult to decide a war against Iraq if there are not clear evidence of the fact that Iraq has armament of mass destruction. Do you have any comment, any reaction on that? MR. REEKER: I didn't see any of those particular remarks. I think we've all been saying the same thing, and that is the Security Council Resolution calls upon Iraq to demonstrate that it does not have weapons of mass destruction. And so far, as we discussed yesterday, as Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei both indicated in their comments at the United Nations and again, Dr. ElBaradei in Washington today -- Iraq has continued to leave large gaps, we've seen growing gaps in terms of information disclosure. They are not answering the questions that they know they should. They are not providing the information that they know they have, and that's what we need to see. This is a matter for Iraq. The onus is on the regime in Baghdad to provide the information to demonstrate that they have rid themselves of their weapons of mass destruction program. And as you know, and as the leaders you've cited know, we are working to provide additional information and share intelligence with the inspections. We're doing everything we can to support that inspection effort and we'll have to see, then, what the inspectors report formally to the Security Council. Coming up on January 27th there will be a report that the resolution calls for. That'll sort of take a look at the first two months of work by the Security Council, and we'll see where we go from there. But the onus remains on Iraq to provide the information, to answer those questions -- the biological agents, what happened to this material; mustard gas, where did this go? They need to provide documentation and other information to clarify that. And so far they haven't indicated that they are doing that. QUESTION: I also have an accent, but (inaudible) (laughter). MR. REEKER: Okay. (Laughter.) Let him follow up that question and then you can go next. QUESTION: I've been waiting 20 minutes. MR. REEKER: I don't think I've been speaking for 20 minutes, sir. We try to get to everybody, so -- Luigi was going to follow up that question. QUESTION: It's very quick. As far as I remember, Javier Solana, in those remarks that my Italian colleague was referring to also said that it would be pretty hard for the US allies in Europe to give you support and a possible war against Iraq if this war is not sanctioned by the US, UN Security Council. My question to you: is the US Government going to pursue a new resolution in the UN Security Council? Will you seek this? MR. REEKER: There's nothing new to report on that. I mean, we've made our position quite clear on that. We're very much working with the Security Council, with the international community on this question of Iraq. The President took this to the Security Council after 12 years of continuously violated and ignored resolutions, the President went to the Security Council on September 12th last year and said it is time for the United Nations to give one last chance for Iraq to come into compliance with this and to disarm. And so that's what we're doing. And how that plays out, I just can't predict. And we have to see what the inspectors can report on the 27th. Where we go from there, there will obviously be discussions. There are regular opportunities to discuss this among my Security Council friends and colleagues and we'll just have to see where we go. Sir. QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Nayyar Zaidi. I represent The Daily Jang in Pakistan. I think couple of weeks ago there was a comprehensive piece in The Washington Post with a photograph of Mr. Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. And the article said that it was the United States which provided the bio-weapons, the germ-weapons, the chemical weapons which were used on Iranians at that time. My question is that at the time that Iraqis were openly and overtly using these weapons and it was reported by the media, the US was silent. Now, for -- MR. REEKER: Not true. Incorrect. QUESTION: Of course you can contradict, I know. MR. REEKER: Go ahead and ask your question and I will outline for you all the things I've outlined in the past. QUESTION: Yes. Exactly. That's what my intent is. I'm coming back now that after the Kuwait invasion, Iraq hasn't done anything overtly in any (inaudible) to threaten its neighbors, to the best of my knowledge and if Donald Rumsfeld could exercise poor judgment at that time, how do we know he's exercising sound judgment now? MR. REEKER: I don't know why you would categorize the meeting that Donald Rumsfeld had at that time as poor judgment. I think you need to go back, I think you need to go back and examine the facts. I think you need to read the article that you cited, because it doesn't say what you said it said. I think you need to look at an article, a letter to the editor by the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs that was in The Washington Post that responded to that yesterday. I think you need to read your history books, I think you need to read -- and I can give you citations of New York Times and Washington Post articles that reviewed all of that -- the supposed "Iraq-gate" issue that was much in the news in the mid-90s. And after a number of investigations, including by the following administration, that is, the Clinton administration, that found there was really nothing there. The suggestion that the United States gave chemical weapons and biological weapons to Iraq is false and that has been discussed and rehashed many, many times throughout the last seven years. At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq undertook a number of commitments, international commitments that were part of the end of that conflict after they had invaded Kuwait. And we're all aware of what they did in Kuwait, including human rights atrocities and other things. Since that time, the regime has thumbed its nose at the international community, has flouted every one of its obligations. Sixteen Security Council resolutions, most of them largely ignored, that included access for inspectors. They kicked inspectors out. And it was only after the United States, working with the Security Council, brought a unanimous and strong resolution back, Resolution 1441, that, lo and behold, Iraq understood that this was serious, and the inspectors are in. Well, they need to understand that it continues to be serious and that they have an opportunity to come clean, to fully disclose all of the information and all of their weapons programs so that we can get rid of them. The fact of the matter is they have used chemical weapons against their own people and against their neighbors, and that experience is one that we are not willing to allow to remain there unresolved. And so we are working with the international community. We are very mindful of the history of Saddam Hussein and the attempts that have been made to work with him through diplomacy. He has that option now to engage with the international community, come clean and live up his expectations. QUESTION: One more follow-up question. It has been suggested many times in the media being attributed to, I think, Mr. Rumsfeld and other officials that one peaceful option Saddam Hussein had to save his own countrymen from hardship was to leave Iraq and go to some other place. MR. REEKER: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: I hope I am accurate on that. I'm very weak on history. MR. REEKER: That's very recent history. QUESTION: All right. So the question is that in none of the statements I've seen -- I mean, they are saying if he goes to another country, fine, but nowhere it is suggested, like in other previous cases, that no matter where you go, you will be tried or prosecuted for your past genocidal acts or whatever. There is a plain suggestion that if he could leave the country he would be forgiven, or at least not pursued. MR. REEKER: I think this very question was dealt with by Ambassador Boucher earlier this week and I'd just point you to his transcripts because undoubtedly he said it much more eloquently than I can. But this idea keeps getting floated, as you said, in the media. We all hear the reports. Secretary Rumsfeld and others have responded to it. We're not aware of any such proposals in terms of Saddam leaving the country, but obviously his willing departure from Iraq would certainly be within the best interests of the Iraqi people, the region and the international community as a whole. A key factor I think we've always said is that there needs to be accountability for abuses. We continue -- you've raised Kuwait and the Gulf War earlier -- we continue to collect information on that. So I think it's sort of a hypothetical question at this point in that. But certainly we see those reports, and as you note, we've responded that that's an option Saddam wants to keep in mind. It would certainly save his people from a lot of trouble that they've, frankly, gone through for many years now. Sir. QUESTION: Thank you. Takashima, Asahi Shimbun. MR. REEKER: Hi. QUESTION: Yes, I have two questions regarding North Korea. The first question is I understand that in the joint statement of TCOG last -- this week -- MR. REEKER: Tuesday. QUESTION: Tuesday. And the United States had a message to its willingness to have a talk with North Korea. And did you get any answers or indications from the New York channel so far? MR. REEKER: No, I'm not aware that we have heard back from North Korea. We would like to hear how they expect to come back into compliance and to dismantle their nuclear weapons program, which is what the entire international community has called on them to do. So we have made quite clear through that statement and our other statements what the position is. We've reminded North Korea what they have given up by moving down this road, how that's affected the North Korean people. You'll recall that President Bush made quite clear that we were prepared to pursue a bold new dialogue. Other countries in the region, Japan for instance, were reaching out to North Korea to have a new approach to help North Korea become more part of the mainstream of the international community. We had concerns and issues we wanted to discuss. We were ready to listen to their concerns as well through that dialogue. But all of that went on hold when we discovered and confronted the North Koreans with the fact that they had started a nuclear weapons program of enriching uranium, all the while -- while the international community, the United States, was abiding by the Agreed Framework that had sealed off the nuclear program at Yongbyon. And so what we need to see is a return to compliance, an end to nuclear weapons development, and we've said -- as we said in the statement after our meetings with our Japanese and South Korean allies -- that we are prepared to talk to North Korea about how they can come into compliance with that. And we had indicated that we had other hopes in relationship as well. Recall that Secretary Powell did speak to his North Korean colleague in July in Brunei last year, and Assistant Secretary Kelly went to Pyongyang and told them what we had been prepared to do, but that the situation, given this weapons program that North Korea decided to pursue, made that impossible. QUESTION: And the second question is could you tell me if -- about the new idea of setting up a new international body which might replace the current KEDO, I mean consist of several countries, I mean, Japan, US and South Korea in addition to China and -- MR. REEKER: That's something I had not been aware of. KEDO has had a particular role, as you know. Certainly, as we've dealt with North Korean issues, we've worked closely through the so called TCOG, the Trilateral Coordination Oversight Group, with Japan and South Korea, but also we've kept in very close touch with Russia and China on North Korea, as well as with the European Union, with the Australians, with the Canadians and others, certainly in this current situation. But in terms of new structures or new organizations, I don't have anything on that. Thank you. Guy. QUESTION: Hello, Guy Dinmore, Financial Times. Phil, on North Korea, given in October you confronted them with this knowledge of the secret weapons program. MR. REEKER: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: And last week, the UN inspectors were expelled. Can you explain what you think in practical terms is the significance of North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT? What difference does this actually make to the situation there? MR. REEKER: Well, I think it's clearly not a positive development. We've heard that from all around the world. It's a matter of serious concern. It's another provocative step by the North Koreans in their policy of nuclear brinkmanship. It violates international norms and only serves to further isolate North Korea. It's clear by the announcement that they made last night, regarding the Non Proliferation Treaty, that Pyongyang is not listening to the consistent message from its neighbors in the region, and from others in the international community that they need to reverse course and completely abandon the nuclear weapons program, to dismantle visibly, verifiably the nuclear weapons program and come into full compliance with its international commitments. And once again, we would just say that North Korea's relations with the entire international community hang on North Korea taking these actions. So the North Koreans have the opportunity to take action here. The ball is in their court, and, as we've said, we'd like to hear from them, how they intend to do that. Anything else? Last chance? You let me off easy. Have a very nice weekend. Thank you. (end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
