Transcript: Powell Says He's Thinking of Engaging DPRK Multilaterally
(Secretary of state meets with media en route to Asia February 21)
(3510)
Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke with members of the news media
while en route from Washington, D.C., to Tokyo, Japan, February 21.
The transcript of that media availability follows:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
(Tokyo, Japan)
February 22, 2003
Press Briefing By Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
On Board Plane En Route to Elmendorf Air Force Base
February 21, 2003
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, welcome on another relatively short, but I
hope busy and useful trip. On the way here, I've been on the phone
with a number of ministers. I spoke to George Papandreou, the Greek
Foreign Minister, as you know, who has the presidency of the E.U. this
six-month period. We're going to set up a meeting with the E.U.
leadership next week, when George is in Washington. It's part of our
regular consultations with the E.U.
I also spoke to the Foreign Secretary of Mexico, Mr. Derbez and to the
Foreign Minister of Chile, Soledad Alvear. I also spoke to the Foreign
Minister of Bulgaria, Mr. Passy, discussions in general and, of
course, specifically about the United Nations action with respect to
Iraq and the possibility of a second resolution.
I don't have any other calls planned for this leg of the trip, but
that's what I've been doing so far this morning. I think you've got
the domestic issues out of -- Richard's been keeping you informed of
the barge in Staten Island, which was essentially some kind of
accident and the awful, awful tragedy up in Rhode Island with a body
count now of 86 young people. So, a horrible, horrible accident.
That's dominating the news, as you'll discover when we get to
Elmendorf.
I'll go to your questions.
QUESTION: You and other State Department officials keep talking about
a bold approach that would have been offered or could be offered to
North Korea if it would behave itself. Nobody has ever defined for me
this bold approach. Could you tell me what was, is, could be in this
bold approach?
SECRETARY POWELL: What we were thinking at the time and still are
thinking is that North Korea is in dire straits with regard to its
ability to feed its people, with respect to its energy, with respect
to its economic situation. We were looking for something that would go
beyond just, you know, statements going back and forth or just the
nuclear issue alone, but to see if we could undertake some more
fundamental efforts that would help them with food, help them with
their economic situation and point them in a new direction; to let
them know that it is not our intention to invade North Korea, but to
see if we could not help them provide them a better life for their
people as we go into this 21st century.
We had begun looking at how to flesh this out, what it might mean with
respect to specific ideas and specific programs. The president had
authorized me to begin discussions to get that started. You know the
rest of the story, really, when the intelligence caught up with us and
we had to begin our dialogue by meeting with Foreign Minister Pak and
then Jim Kelley going over to Pyongyang. We simply had to deal with
these proliferations issues and the nuclear issue and that essentially
stopped any further discussions toward a bold approach.
It's not out of the realm of the possible and it's not out of
consideration, but we have to get these matters resolved and behind us
with regard to their proliferating actions, with respect to their
nuclear weapons development programs and also with respect to size of
their military poised along the 38th parallel.
Keep in mind that as we were developing this last spring and summer,
it wasn't standing alone. The Japanese had stepped forward and the
Pyongyang declaration that came out of Mr. Koizumi's visit to
Pyongyang pointed to a route toward normalization. The abductees going
back to Japan after North Korea finally acknowledged that they did
have abductees and the promise of significant financial aid for the
North Koreans from the Japanese was also part of that tapestry that we
were all working on. The South Koreans had continued to pursue their
Sunshine Policy and we had gone so far as to work with the South
Koreans to start talking about opening lanes through the DMZ, which
has continued to go forward. We had the groundbreaking and concrete
pouring for the light water reactors.
So, there was some momentum building up that might have assisted North
Korea. But what we discovered was during this entire period of the
agreed framework, when everybody thought the nuclear genie had been
caught in the Pyongyang jug, there was another nuclear program
underway and that had to be dealt with.
So that's where we are. We are continuing to pursue a policy that says
that we are not poised to invade North Korea, but we have not taken
any of the options that are available to the president off the table.
We are still hoping that we will be able to get a dialogue going, but
we feel strongly that it should be a multilateral dialogue or a
multilateral forum for this dialogue, for the simple reason that other
nations are involved. It is not just a U.S.-DPRK matter. It affects
their neighbors, who are at a greater risk for this kind of
proliferation than we are, for that matter. But we're all at risk, the
whole world is at risk. This kind of proliferation, this kind of
technology.
I would just point again to the strong position of the Chinese
government, they do not want to see a nuclearized peninsula. That came
out of the Crawford summit between President Jiang Zemin and President
Bush. I'll be discussing with the Chinese potential ways to go
forward, ideas of how we can get a multilateral dialogue going in a
multilateral forum, within which we can try to find solutions to the
challenge we face.
QUESTION: Can you give us an example of what you might be thinking
about?
SECRETARY POWELL: We have an idea on the table of course, the
five-plus-five. Other ideas have come along and we have heard from
some of our friends that they have some ideas. I don't have anything
that I'd like to put on the table right now. But there are many ways
to do this, to you look at the different forums that exist around
Asia; there are other forums that might be used besides just the
five-plus-five. We're not ruling anything out, or any number in or any
number out.
We're looking for a way to make it an international problem. Because
what you have to keep in mind throughout all of this is that the
two-person solution, U.S.-DPRK, was not successful last time, even
though we thought it was successful. We had every reason to believe it
was successful, only to discover that they were working on an
alternative technology for nuclear weapons development. They were
doing that with all kinds of assurances from the previous
administration in the form of signed letters from the president, in
the form of joint statements agreed to and also in other means of
communications back and forth. So this time we believe that a
multilateral solution, recognizing that we'll have to talk to them,
but a multilateral forum is the best way to get this started.
QUESTION: Why is a multilateral solution going to work any better than
a bilateral one? If the North Koreans choose to cheat, they can just
as easily cheat on everybody.
SECRETARY POWELL: They could, I'm not predicting that the final, if
there is a final -- I don't know who would be in on it. But I think
that if more nations in the region and the international community
were involved, then the obligations on North Korea would be stronger
and the consequences of failure to perform or abide by would be
greater.
And frankly, the international community has already acted on this. We
were successful, the international community was, in getting the
resolution from the IAEA, on the 12th of February I believe it was,
referred to the Security Council with a 33-0-2 abstention vote was a
pretty strong statement of the international community. So, they are
concerned about it and it is now before the Security Council with a
referral to an experts' group.
QUESTION: Can you elaborate on why the consequences would be more
serious, particularly because Japan, South Korea, China have not shown
a whole lot of desire, for example, to use economic leverage.
SECRETARY POWELL: The Japanese right now are not providing any food
aid because of North Korean policies with respect to abductees and
other things. The route of normalization that the Japanese were going
down rather steadily last fall, we've seen certainly a yellow light,
if not a red light, on that road.
And so I just think that if more nations were involved in this, and
more nations took an active role in managing this problem or working
this problem with the DPRK and if we are able to find a solution, and
I still believe a solution is possible, then I think it would be a
better solution if it involved regional partners of ours and neighbors
of North Korea and other international organizations, perhaps.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you said last week that Russia and China
would be threatened by a nuclearization of North Korea. Surely, North
Korea is not going to attack either one of those two. How would they
be threatened?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think any nation in the region should be concerned
and would be at risk with a nuclear weapon in the hands of North
Korea. It is China who has said they want the Korean peninsula to
remain denuclearized. I assume China had good reason for adopting that
policy and for reaffirming that policy at every opportunity.
QUESTION: Are you concerned that while you're waiting for these other
countries to get convinced that this is indeed an international
problem, you're losing valuable time?
SECRETARY POWELL: Time is passing, and there's always the possibility
that North Korea might take other actions that we would not like to
see, but we have made it clear to all of our partners and friends that
it would be wise for North Korea not to take further provocative
action with respect to its nuclear activities, at a time when we are
all working to see if we cannot find a diplomatic solution, a peaceful
solution.
But time is passing and we're trying to use that time to the maximum.
But at the same time, we're not going to let time become a weapon to
be used against us, essentially saying you must respond to what North
Korea is demanding because of time or because of what they might do
tomorrow. We will stay in close touch with our friends and neighbors,
we watch closely what's happening and we will remain ready to engage
when the opportunity presents itself.
QUESTION: Last week, the Chinese foreign ministry said that they
thought the best way to resolve this problem was for the United States
and North Korea to talk in a bilateral fashion. Have you seen any
indication at all that China is ready to use its influence and get
involved in a more robust multilateral fashion?
SECRETARY POWELL: We have spoken at considerable length to the Chinese
leadership. I've met with Foreign Minister Tang almost every week for
the last month in New York. We'll see him again this weekend and
President Bush has spoken to President Jiang Zemin about it.
We understand their point of view and their desire for us to speak
directly to the DPRK and Mr. Tang and I have had long conversations
about this. He's heard us say that we understand that point of view,
but we believe that others have an obligation as well to achieve a
denuclearized Korean peninsula.
The Chinese are sensitive to our point of view and they are in close
touch with the North Koreans. I don't want to characterize what they
might or might not be doing because they tend to keep their cards
close to the chest, but we are communicating back to the Chinese and
through them to the North Koreans and through others to the North
Koreans that we strongly believe that the way to get moving and the
way to get started is through a multilateral dialogue. But we
recognize that everybody in the region has been taking positions over
the weeks that say they hope they will find a way, that a way will be
found for there to be direct U.S.-DPRK dialogue. We have said that we
are looking for a multilateral forum in which to start dialogue and
then lots of things can happen from there.
QUESTION: Do you think you can solve this without China's help?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think China will be an important partner in
finding a solution. I think there will have to be lots of people
involved in a solution that will be comprehensive and solve the
problem once and for all and not leave the problem in place only to
erupt at some later time. We need to deal with this in a comprehensive
way and a comprehensive solution, in my judgment, will require
participation of all the neighbors and other organizations or, in
other words, not just the immediate neighbors. I think the IAEA has a
role to play, the U.N. has a role to play, and all should play their
role.
QUESTION: I'd like to change subjects for just a minute. Do you know
if the Blix letter on the missiles, on whether the missiles would be
destroyed, has come out yet? And what it says?
SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know and I would really have to refer that
to Blix himself. I don't think it has, but don't take that for the
record. I'll have Richard check. I don't know what might have happened
today, but I can't answer the question.
QUESTION: What would your choice be? Do you want the missiles
destroyed or do you want them disabled in some way?
SECRETARY POWELL: We believe they are prohibited, we believe the test
stand was designed for a prohibited purpose, we believe all of the
engines that have been brought in are prohibited, and therefore
believe they ought to be destroyed.
QUESTION: Could you give us an update on Turkey and the negotiations?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think we've made some progress. The information I
have, which I was talking to you about this morning, I'll give you now
for the record. We have been contacted by the Turkish authorities
through our ambassador and they say there are some outstanding issues
with respect to the three documents we were discussing with them and
on some of the ideas that we had for flexibility with respect to
economic assistance.
Our teams will be working intensively over the next 2-to-3 days to
resolve these issues. They're difficult, but they should be
resolvable. And if they are resolved, then we believe the possibility
exists for the Turkish government to take this to their parliament
early next week. It is not yet a done deal, but there has been
progress in the last 12 hours. The next question I think will be: Has
$6 billion [thousand million] remained the number? The answer is yes.
We're trying to see how much flexibility there is in the use of that
$6 billion [thousand million], in order to assist them in the months
ahead.
QUESTION: Back on North Korea. You've talked about the sort of
leverage China could have over North Korea because of the food and the
fuel that it provides. Does using that leverage entail somehow
reducing the food and fuel aid they provide? Is that something you
would expect from the Chinese?
SECRETARY POWELL: I don't think so. Our concern with food aid really
is to make sure we have a good understanding of where it's going and
how it's being used. I don't know if we've made an announcement yet,
but we'll be making an announcement soon of an initial tranche and
then we will monitor the World Food Program needs and what they ask
for, to see what our additional contribution will be as we go through
the year.
We were unable to do anything until the omnibus bill was passed, which
gave us the authority and before this trip is out, I think that I'll
be able to say more about other food. But to go back on our solid
policy is that we don't use food as a political weapon. The need is
still great. You go through all the politics; there are kids out there
that are starving. If we can help them, we will. That's what we've
always done. We've got to make sure it's the kids and the people in
need who are getting the food and that remains a concern of ours and a
concern of the World Food Program as well.
So it's not just a U.S. concern, we can't have the food not going to
the people who need it. It's not fair to our taxpayers, and taxpayers
around the world who pay for this food. We should not be using the
food to prop up the elite or the regime; we should be using the food
to feed people that are desperately in need.
QUESTION: Could you go into any more detail about your phone
conversations with the Mexicans, the Chileans and Bulgarians about
what you might be saying to them to persuade them not to abstain?
SECRETARY POWELL: I told all of them that we were at work on the
language for another resolution and that we expected to table such a
resolution early next week. I told them that we'd be in touch with
them through their permanent representatives in New York to discuss
it. Expect that the resolution would be fairly straightforward, direct
and point out the fact that it appears that Iraq is still not moving
in a way to comply with 1441 and that therefore the council has to
consider appropriate action on the resolution or other action the
council might choose to take.
We will then begin consulting with members of the council on the
resolution once it is tabled on the specific language in the
resolution and when action might be appropriate on the resolution.
Over the weekend, we'll be consulting with other members of the
Security Council.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask you what you expected of China in terms of
food and fuel.
SECRETARY POWELL: China has considerable influence, not just influence
that comes from many years of association with the DPRK, but it's its
principal supplier of energy and economic activity and a large portion
of the aid that China gives to other nations goes to the DPRK. So they
have leverage, but I don't have any specific requests taking to the
Chinese leadership as to how they should use that right now, other
than to make the point to them that they do have considerable
influence with the DPRK because of this. I've made this point to
Foreign Minister Tang on a number of occasions and it won't be news to
them.
QUESTION: Are you willing to risk a veto in order to get to a second
resolution?
SECRETARY POWELL: One is always at risk of a veto, or one is always at
the potential benefit of a 15-0. I just don't know where it's going to
come out. It's a little early to start speculating on how the debate
will go and what the votes will be like.
In my own mind, I have a lineup of where we are now. And I have some
instincts and some sense of where we might be in a little while. I
think that's where it is, but I don't want to speculate on risking or
not risking a veto. This is the time to not speculate about future
matters.
QUESTION: I was sure you were going to begin that sentence with "never
underestimate...."
SECRETARY POWELL: You guys did it last time.
QUESTION: Has the World Food Program put in place anything new that
would suggest that this new food aid would be monitored any better
than in the past and where do you expect to announce it?
SECRETARY POWELL: I'll have to ask Richard to get an answer on what
World Food Program has been doing. I can't answer that. And food,
we'll make an appropriate announcement at an appropriate time. Richard
will let you know in due course.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
