10 January 2003
U.S. Stresses It Has No Intention of Attacking North Korea
(January 9 State Department briefing on N. Korea, Iraq) (3260) The United States has "no hostile intent" toward North Korea, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said at a January 9 briefing. Boucher noted that President Bush and all his top administration officials have consistently said the United States has "no aggressive intent" toward North Korea and no intention of invading it. Of chief concern is North Korea's noncompliance with its international obligations to abandon its nuclear weapons program, Boucher said. "The international community," he said, "has made clear that both Iraq and North Korea need to live up to their obligations. We've made clear, the United States and others, that we're looking for a peaceful resolution of these issues." According to Boucher, "the international community has dealt with Iraq for 12 years now, with various resolutions, been communicating, dialoguing, making clear what it was required, making offers of what Iraq could achieve in terms of sanctions lifting, in status of the world if they complied. And Iraq has not only consistently failed to comply, but has consistently tried to deceive and defy the international community." "North Korea is a different situation. We deal with it differently," Boucher said, but he added: "We're also looking for a peaceful resolution." The IAEA serves as the world's central intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the nuclear field, and as the international inspectorate for the application of nuclear safeguards and verification measures covering civilian nuclear programs. Following are excerpts from the transcript of the January 9 State Department briefing: (begin excerpt) State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed. Following is the transcript of the briefing: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING TURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2003 (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) 1:17p.m. EST BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman Index NORTH KOREA -- Gov. Richardson (D-NM) and Reports of Special Envoy Status/Travel Communiqué and Obligations -- UN Secretary General's Special Envoy to N. Korea's Meetings -- Sequencing of Obligations/Non-Compliance of International Obligations -- Hostile vs. Aggressive Intent CHINA/KOREAS -- Denuclearization of the Peninsula DEPARMENT -- Secretary Powell's Telephone Calls - Russia and China IRAQ/N KOREA --International Community's Outlook on Inspections and Obligations QUESTION: Do you know anything about Governor Richardson, perhaps, being an envoy to North Korea? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would describe it that way at all. We were aware of the meeting, the contacts between the North Koreans and Governor Richardson. We have to approve the travel of North Koreans, approve the travel for them to go down there. The Secretary's been in touch with Governor Richardson. We're aware that the North Koreans talk to a variety of people, different channels, international channels. We coordinate with allies and friends internationally. We make our views known to other people who might have contact. So at this point, the basic position, I think, remains where it was yesterday, that the -- looking to see what, how the North Koreans are going to react, either in public or in private, that the burden remains on North Korea to promptly and verifiably dismantle these programs and meet their international obligations, and we'll be looking to see whether they do that. QUESTION: Have there been visas approved or visas applied for, as far as you know, for a delegation? MR. BOUCHER: It's not visas. It's travel. Their representatives in New York, when they want to go anywhere beyond New York, have to get permission from the State Department to go, I think it's 25 miles beyond the center of Manhattan. QUESTION: So it would be people that are already in the U.S., as you understand it, traveling? MR. BOUCHER: We approve travel for those kinds of people. QUESTION: And has that request been made? MR. BOUCHER: We approved travel for the people in New York to New Mexico. I don't know. QUESTION: But has the request been made? QUESTION: He just said yes. QUESTION: He said the approval has been given. QUESTION: Do you know how long Richardson has been talking to the North Koreans? I mean in this -- MR. BOUCHER: You mean how many years? I mean, (laughter) QUESTION: No, I mean now. MR. BOUCHER: -- this is a man who's had various contacts over a long period of time. How often he talks to them, you know, at this stage, I don't know. But we know about travel, we've been in touch with him. QUESTION: But how long -- when did you become aware of this most recent round of talks and -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if I can say, "round of talks." We just know the North Koreans are going down to see him and we've been in touch with him. QUESTION: Do you know when? MR. BOUCHER: When what? QUESTION: The North Koreans would go and meet with Richardson? MR. BOUCHER: That's not -- I'm not going to give that kind of information out. QUESTION: Well, how about this. When was the -- MR. BOUCHER: Somebody else's meeting I'm not going to talk about. QUESTION: When did they ask and when did you approve? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to get into detail on the specifics of meetings or timing. QUESTION: I'm not asking when the timing -- I'm asking when did you approve the travel of their diplomats? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to get into details as to questions of timing, requests and approvals and things like that. It's not our meeting. It's Governor Richardson's meeting. And we approved the travel of the North Koreans to go there. QUESTION: But there is -- you don't have any involvement in this at all? You didn't suggest or -- did Governor Richardson contact you -- not you personally, but who initiated this contact? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know whether the Secretary called him or he called the Secretary, but they've talked to each other about the prospect of this meeting. QUESTION: And who initiated the idea of this meeting? Was this an initiative from Governor Richardson or from the North Koreans? MR. BOUCHER: I think from the North Koreans, actually. QUESTION: And have you -- did the Secretary tell the Governor what he would like the Governor to tell them when they come? MR. BOUCHER: As we do with anybody who has contact with North Koreans, whether they're other governments or other people that we know, we make sure they understand our position. Our position -- you understand it, I think, too -- is the one clearly stated in the trilateral statement the other day. QUESTION: Can you at least say, Richard, if the North Korean request to travel came after the release of the TCOG statement? Or has it been a standing request for some time? In other words -- MR. BOUCHER: I'll check and see if I can make sure. QUESTION: What I'm trying to get at is, it your understanding or is it your belief that the North Koreans want to use this channel to react to the TCOG statement? Or is it -- or is this something that could be -- MR. BOUCHER: I guess the answer is we'll see. They may have something to say to him. We'll see. QUESTION: But in terms of the timing of it, does that lead you to any -- MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to draw any conclusions at this point. QUESTION: Richard, there are reports out of Asia today that a compromise might be in the works along the lines of the United States reaffirming the 2000 Joint Communiqué. Is that something that the United States would be willing to do? MR. BOUCHER: I realize that a particular news agency has reported something like that sourced to diplomats who may or may not have close ties to the North Koreans. Again, we're looking to see what the North Koreans have to say either in public or in private. I made that clear the other day. We're looking to see whether they are going to verifiably and promptly dismantle their nuclear programs and come into compliance with their nuclear obligations. When they have something like that to communicate, I'm sure we'll hear. QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that? In his interview yesterday, the Secretary was reported to have said that you might be willing to go beyond passing comments on lack of hostile intent. Can you give us any idea of what he envisions in that respect? MR. BOUCHER: No. QUESTION: Has the Secretary asked Richardson to pass on a specific message or messages? MR. BOUCHER: No. QUESTION: Would you regard a communication from the North Koreans to Governor Richardson as being some kind of an official response, in other words, or a more thought out response than the invective that was -- that came out yesterday immediately after the TCOG statement? MR. BOUCHER: I think we'll see what they have to communicate to Governor Richardson or to some other person that they're talking to, including the internationals. If it is a more thought out response, if it does indicate that they are prepared to promptly and verifiably dismantle their nuclear enrichment program, then it would be interesting. If it's not, it's not. If it is, it is. We'll see when it happens. QUESTION: But you don't -- you wouldn't take any comment from the North Korean side to Richardson less seriously than a face -- a direct official-to-official comment? MR. BOUCHER: I think it depends on the content of what they have to say more than the question of who they might say it to. QUESTION: Are you saying when you say that we're looking to see what they have to say, are you saying that until they have something to say, the issue of security guarantees is completely off the table, nothing will come from the US before you hear something back from the North Koreans since the TCOG statement? MR. BOUCHER: We have indicated that the North needs to meet its obligations. We've also indicated we have no aggressive intent, vis-à-vis North Korea. The President's done that many times before. The Secretary has, as well. The -- as the White House spokesman said yesterday, the ball is in the North Korean court at this point. QUESTION: But since you have done that many times and they're still asking for more, they obviously don't see it as sufficient. MR. BOUCHER: As the Secretary said, we're not going to go rushing down to negotiate something in order to get them to meet obligations they've taken on before. They need to meet the obligations they've taken on before.... QUESTION: On the UN envoy, the Canadian man who was going to go to North Korea, do you have any message for him? Or is U.S. officials in Beijing is going to meet him before he goes to North Korea? MR. BOUCHER: I think we've been in touch with the Secretary General's envoy to North Korea, as well. So we keep in touch with people who talk to the North Koreans. QUESTION: And even before and or after the -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't exactly what meetings or schedules, but he's not -- he's not there yet, is he? QUESTION: No. MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. He's reported to be going, but we keep in touch with people like that, yes. QUESTION: Could you help us understand what Secretary said on today's Washington Post that he was asked non-aggression treaty with North Korea, and he said you've just bounded a problem. That's what diplomacy is all about. Is this an indication that if he is not, do not anything recent to ensure North Koreans that we won't invade you. MR. BOUCHER: At this point -- I was asked before if I could provide any more detail on it or elaborate on it, and no. But the basic phrase means we've said this, they've said they want that and that bounds the problem, whether there is something in between that might be done or not, we'll see. But the issue, as I've said, for us, is North Korea meeting its obligations. We've made that abundantly clear. We've made it clear it's for them to meet their obligations. But that doesn't rule out that some way might be found on the security issues. QUESTION: The Secretary made specific references to security guarantees offered to the North Koreans as part of the 1994 negotiations on the Agreed Framework, according the The Post, anyway. Does he consider those assurances still to be binding? MR. BOUCHER: The -- I can't remember the exact phrase that he used. Phil may have the transcript with him. The -- our view of the Agreed Framework has always been that we were willing to abide by it if North Korea did. North Koreans are the ones who said it was nullified. North Korea is the country that failed to live up to its obligations. So, I don't think there's too much more I can say about it or any aspect of it, except that they were the ones that said it was nullified. QUESTION: In the phone call from Secretary to Chinese Foreign Minister, did he ask China to do anything specifically? And also, the Chinese said there should be some flexibility in the ways to start a talk and talk. Do you have any comment on that? MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see that flexibility statement from the Chinese. I think they have made clear, as others have, they strongly believe in the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and that's something that unites all the international community in the view that this peninsula cannot be allowed to be nuclearized by these various programs, whether it's the ones, the Yongbyon facility which they've now taken the cameras out of, or this other uranium enrichment program. In the discussions with the Chinese and others -- the Secretary has talked to Foreign Minister Ivanov, as well, since the trilaterals with Japan and Korea -- the Secretary has made clear the view that we expressed in the trilateral statement. And as we have encouraged all those with contacts with North Korea to make clear that the North needs to dismantle these program and that they should look carefully at the U.S. view and the view of Japan, Korea and the United States as expressed in that trilateral statement. QUESTION: Richard, was that call with Ivanov today? MR. BOUCHER: Yesterday was Ivanov. Right? What are you whispering to me, Lynn? She's whispering to me, "Take out the little list and make sure." Well, it depends on what year it is. Phone calls, 2003. Foreign Minister Ivanov was on Wednesday and Foreign Minister Tang was today. I'll double-check on that. QUESTION: Just a loose end. Maybe you said this in the flurry at the top and I missed it. Do you know how many or did you say how many North Koreans are going to New Mexico? MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say how many. QUESTION: Can you say? MR. BOUCHER: No. QUESTION: Why not? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it's for us to report on other people's meetings and other people's travels. That -- QUESTION: Well, it's your permission, though, for them to go. MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, but that's still different than our taking ownership of the meeting and describing who's there. QUESTION: Richard, you mentioned the uranium enrichment and Yongbyon. Is there any particular sequence that you want to see in North Korea's response -- anything that should come first? The dismantling of -- MR. BOUCHER: No, there's no sequencing. Those are both obligations that North Korea needs to meet and there is no question of doing one but not the other until later. They both need to be met. They're both currently issues of noncompliance with North Korea's international obligations and North Korea needs to live up to its international obligations..... QUESTION: Yeah, Richard, a few moments ago you said you had no aggressive intent. Do you make a substantive distinction between aggressive intent and hostile intent, which is what the 2000 Communiqué said? MR. BOUCHER: The President said we have no intention of attacking, we have no intention of invading. I think the Secretary has said those things. The Secretary said we have no hostile intent. The President, I think, or the Secretary has also used the phrase "no aggressive intent." It's all the same thing. It all reflects a general attitude on the part of the United States.... QUESTION: The IAEA Director General has said that he's coming here tomorrow to talk to the Secretary and Miss -- Dr. Rice. Can you confirm that he's meeting with the Secretary and what other points, obviously North Korea and Iraq, but in more detail if you can? As much as you can? MR. BOUCHER: I hate it when people give all my information away in the question. The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. ElBaradei, will be coming to Washington tomorrow. He will have meetings here with the Secretary of State and they will discuss Iraq and North Korea, I'm sure. As you know, the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Directors just passed a very significant resolution on the subject of North Korea and the Director General will be following up on that -- has, I think, already started to follow up on that with the North Koreans and so it's a good time for us all to talk to him and to talk about the situations in North Korea as well as the work that he and his inspectors are doing in Iraq. QUESTION: Richard, Mr. Wolfe met Dr. Blix in New York earlier this week. What, specifically, did he propose or request that the inspectorate start doing? MR. BOUCHER: The Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation John Wolfe, meets with Dr. Blix very frequently, often several times a week. We offer our support and we offer information, compare notes on issues, but again, I'm not in a position to go into any particular meeting.... QUESTION: Richard, can you describe for us the difference between Iraq and North Korea insofar as inspection and taking it to the Security Council? You're not taking this to the Security Council on the North Korean situation. MR. BOUCHER: I really do think that we've dealt with that question about a dozen times over the last 12 days, so if you can I'll give you the short version. The international community has made clear that both Iraq and North Korea need to live up to their obligations. We've made clear, the United States and others, that we're looking for a peaceful resolution of these issues. The international community has dealt with Iraq for 12 years now, with various resolutions, been communicating, dialoguing, making clear what it was required, making offers of what Iraq could achieve in terms of sanctions lifting, in status of the world if they complied. And Iraq has not only consistently failed to comply, but has consistently tried to deceive and defy the international community. That continues. That's what I'm pointing out today. North Korea is a different situation. We deal with it differently. We're also looking for a peaceful resolution. We and a number of other countries are looking to see an end to these nuclear programs on the peninsula and, you know, we're making that point to North Korea. Just because we have problems in two different places doesn't mean we will handle them exactly the same. I think we're bringing to bear the tools of diplomacy, the tools of the international community that are appropriate for each situation and that could try to resolve these situations.... (end excerpt) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
