Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

QUESTION: Can you clarify what Mr. Kelly said today when he said that the U.S. was willing to aid North Korea with energy supplies?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there's much to clarify. We can get you the full transcript of what he said, certainly. But as Ari Fleischer has already explained at the White House, the remarks were responding to a question about North Korea's energy situation. They are consistent with our policy regarding North Korea that we've always said from here -- that's North Korea needs to eliminate these nuclear weapons -- its nuclear weapons program in order to reap any benefits of responsible participation in the international community.

He was asked, I think, what are the prospects for a particular project. And he said not until they get rid of the nuclear program. And that's the answer.

QUESTION: So is this the KEDO? I mean, continuing construction --

MR. BOUCHER: This was something else. This was a question on a pipeline bringing gas from Sakhalin, I think it was, but I'll show you the transcript.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. open to talks at the UN at the working level with the North Koreans?

MR. BOUCHER: We keep those usual channels open and those work. They -- it's not UN mission to UN mission. It's their UN mission to people down here -- to the desk director down here. That's the usual channel. We have, you know, exchanges in that channel all the time of one sort or another.

We've been readily willing to go up if they have something to say. I know of several instances where they called down and we had folks take the shuttle up the same afternoon to meet with them, so it's no problem using the channel. But as we pointed out last week, the question is, what do the North Koreans have to say at this point?

We did keep in close touch with Governor Richardson. The Secretary talked to him several times over the weekend and has received reports from him. We certainly -- we're very interested in looking to see what the North Koreans might have to say, but as I think we pointed out over the weekend, apparently they really didn't address the issues that have been of great concern to the international community.

They expressed an interest in dialogue. But I would have to note that while they were down in New Mexico, the North Korean delegates continued to take steps in the wrong direction -- that North Korea generally -- let me start again.

While the delegates were in New Mexico, North Korea continued to take steps in the wrong direction, especially the withdrawal from the Nonproliferation Treaty. And they've threatened further steps such as missile testing that would raise tensions with the international community. So at this point, we'll look carefully at everything they said in New Mexico, at the reports we've gotten from Governor Richardson, and the usual channels remain open should there be more to say or should they have more to say.

Elise.

QUESTION: Governor Richardson said that the North Koreans said that they would be willing to verifiably stop their nuclear weapons -- nuclear development if the U.S. would hold talks with them. Is that something -- you say that they would have to stop the programs before you could have talks on other matters, but would you be willing to have talks with them on that?

MR. BOUCHER: That's, I believe, something that they've said in their statement in New York if I go back to that. The issue is whether they are going to promptly and verifiably dismantle the uranium enrichment program. The issue is whether they are going to reestablish the monitoring -- the seals, the cameras and the monitors the International Atomic Energy Agency had. We have seen very little, if anything, in their public or private statements to address those issues.

QUESTION: So they would have to do all those things before you would have talks, wide-ranging talks with them?

MR. BOUCHER: I've said we're willing to talk to them about how they can meet their obligations to the international community. We've made that clear in our trilateral statement. We've made that clear in our subsequent statements. We're quite willing to talk to them about how they can meet those obligations. But they have to be prepared to meet those obligations.

QUESTION: Richard, even though the administration has made quite clear that Governor Richardson is not a U.S. official or any kind of an envoy and he was acting only in the capacity as himself, there was somewhat of a U.S. imprimatur given to his talks, given the fact that his frequent conversations with Secretary Powell. And, of course, in light of that and the fact that you guys have repeatedly said you're not interested, or you will not be willing to sign a non-aggression treaty with the North Koreans, and you've referred repeatedly back to previous North-South agreements that include non-aggression clauses, do you have anything to say about Governor Richardson yesterday, unprompted, saying that he believed that the United States should sign a non-aggression pact with the North Koreans?

MR. BOUCHER: I actually didn't see that particular statement.

QUESTION: It was on this week, on ABC.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, sorry. I was doing other things at the moment, but the question of security for North Korea has been, I think, very well addressed by the administration. Governor Richardson, I think, made clear that he supported administration policy. He made clear that in his meetings he was trying to reflect his understanding of administration policy. I'd have to see the context of what he might have said outside of those meetings, outside of that context.

QUESTION: All right. But he was not led to believe at all by anyone in this administration that suggesting to that a non-aggression treaty would be something that the United States is willing to consider?

MR. BOUCHER: That's not been something we've been willing to consider.

QUESTION: So his comment to the effect that you should does not reflect --

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I'd have to look at the context. I assume he might have been speaking about his own opinion by that point.

QUESTION: Back to Assistant Secretary Kelly's comments, wouldn't the U.S. be ready to discuss resuming the fuel oil shipments if North Korea stopped this nuclear expansion, as well? I mean, wouldn't this fall under the category of being ready to help assist North Korea with energy and fuel?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think -- at this stage, until the North Koreans indicate -- are prepared to get -- to abandon, to promptly and verifiably dismantle the uranium enrichment program, until they're prepared to return to the inspections and the monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the facilities that have been under their monitoring, it's really premature to speculate on what could come down the road. We did make clear when Jim Kelly was in North Korea in October that we were prepared to take a bold approach to relations with North Korea and willing to do things in that regard if they were willing to do things. But none of that could proceed as long as the nuclear program was being pursued.

QUESTION: And his --

MR. BOUCHER: Let me just finish one other point. We and other members of the international community have made clear repeatedly, and I think that you'll see it in the trilateral statement last week, that North Korea's relations with the rest of the world hinge on their promptly and verifiably getting rid of this nuclear program. That remains the case. So speculating on anything else after that is really speculation at this point.

QUESTION: But when he says that there may be opportunities with the U.S. and with other countries to help North Korea in the energy area, wouldn't this fall under that? That was a deal that was already in place.

MR. BOUCHER: Again, he was answering, I think you'll see in the sentence, the private sector was referred to. He was answering a specific question about private sector things. But, yes, the general proposition applies that other things are possible in these relationships if North Korea verifiably and promptly eliminates their program. But until that happens, we can't speculate on where that road might lead.

Elise.

QUESTION: I have two questions. First of all, do they have to actually verify and dismantle the programs or do they just have to signal a willingness to do so? Because right now the rhetoric is in the --

MR. BOUCHER: It's the same question you asked ten minutes ago and that we answered last week. They have to -- we have said that we are willing to talk about how they can meet these obligations. So that's what we're interested in. And we have to -- looking, we were looking in Mexico, in their discussions there, for some indication that they were prepared to do that. But we didn't see it.

QUESTION: Could you say anything about this Australian delegation headed to Pyongyang and whether it's being coordinated with the United States?

MR. BOUCHER: It is an Australian delegation. We've seen their public comments. We've been in touch with them privately. I think Foreign Minister Downer and the Secretary have talked about this in some of their recent conversations. I think the head of the Australian delegation is in Seoul right now and he's had discussions with Jim Kelly. So they're coordinating with us. It is still an Australian delegation, but I think the Australians have made clear in their public comments that they will tell the North Koreans that everything in their relationship hinges on action to dismantle these nuclear programs as well.

QUESTION: When you talk about close coordination with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, would you now put Australia in that group of countries that's closely coordinated?

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, there's a ton more. I mean, you know, we've coordinated with the European Union. The Secretary's talked to Foreign Minister Papandreou several times about North Korea. We tend to cite some of the principal -- Canada, as well. So we tend to sight some of the, sort of, neighborhood. But I think that anyone in the world that he talks to, they tend to talk about this and we coordinate with governments all over the world.

QUESTION: Do you know when the last time Secretary and Foreign Minister Downer spoke?

MR. BOUCHER: Do you remember when that was?

QUESTION: Has it been since the Australians announced that -- then posted the announcement that this team was going?

MR. BOUCHER: It might have been pre- it becoming public.

QUESTION: Okay, but they have specifically spoken about --

MR. BOUCHER: But they've spoken about the idea that North -- that Australia was intending to send a group.

(...)

QUESTION: The UN experts' meeting, Hans Blix and the IAEA, have said they need about another year to fully conduct their weapons inspections in Iraq. And over the weekend there have been some talks with the Turkish Government about using some of the bases if we were to go to war against Iraq. Is -- and I know for, I guess, a year or more you've been hearing about the ongoing talks in Cyprus. Is any of this being tied together with the Turks by the whole ending of the Cyprus problem?

MR. BOUCHER: These are all issues we've discussed with the Turkish Government, but I'm not aware that they're all being tied together, no.

QUESTION: Going back to the first question, can you comment on the one-year statement?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, the issue is not some arbitrary period of time. The issue is Iraq's disarmament. And what the UN resolution required was active cooperation. And so these reports that are being provided by the inspectors as we go forward are to indicate whether or not Iraq is cooperating. You saw what they said in a preliminary fashion on January 9th, that while there's been superficial cooperation, essentially, Iraq was not coming clean. And they will report again to us in a slightly more formal way on January 27th. That's an important date for the report. We will look at it and we'll decide what the appropriate steps are after that.

But the point is that Iraq was given a final opportunity to cooperate, and it's cooperation that matters.

QUESTION: Richard, next week, actually a week from today, which is a week before the 27th, this -- well, first of all, can you confirm that the Secretary is going to go to this UN meeting?

MR. BOUCHER: I did last week.

QUESTION: Well, you said he expected to go. He's definitely going to go?

MR. BOUCHER: January 20th, yes.

QUESTION: How much --

MR. BOUCHER: Terrorism meeting.

QUESTION: It's not your meeting. It's a French meeting, and recognizing that the subject is broadly counterterrorism, does the Secretary expect to have any talks about Iraq either during that meeting or separate bilats while he's up at the UN?

MR. BOUCHER: I would imagine that foreign ministers in one place all at the same time, or many of them at the same time, would take the opportunity to meet with each other and talk about issues like Iraq and North Korea and anything else that's going on.

(...)
[End]