Six-Party Talks Making Progress, But No Final Agreement Yet
04 August 2005
Secretary Hill says parties are working to bridge substantial differences
After 11 days, the Six-Party Talks designed to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons still have not produced an agreement, but participants are willing to soldier on, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill says.
Hill, the top U.S. delegate at talks that also include representatives from North and South Korea, Japan, China and Russia, acknowledged that the process has been difficult.
"I think there is a feeling that we have taken this further than we've ever had in the past," Hill told the press in Beijing during interviews August 4, but "it has not been an easy process."
"We'd like to see if we can get to an agreement," he said. "We're definitely not there. We do have substantial differences, but I think no one is quite ready to say we cannot get there so I think there's a desire to keep on going."
At issue are two pages of principles that have not yet been hammered out with sufficient clarity to satisfy all of the parties, according to Hill.
"We cannot have a situation where the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] pretends to abandon its nuclear programs and we pretend to believe them," he said. "We need to have a situation where we know precisely what they have agreed to do -- what they have agreed to abandon, so that we can precisely react to that."
Despite the difficulties, the delegates are "very dedicated to doing everything we can do to try to bridge the remaining differences and try to find a solution to this," Hill said. "We'll be here as long as it is useful to be here."
Hill acknowledged the difficulties the North Koreans are having about abandoning a decades-old nuclear weapons program, but observed: "They've got thousands of problems and nuclear weapons help them with none of them. Nuclear weapons don't solve a single DPRK problem. Even the security issue that they talk about, nuclear weapons have nothing to do with helping their security."
Hill said the goal for these talks -- the fourth round to be held, after a hiatus of more than a year -- is to get an agreement on principles that will form the basis of an eventual full agreement, but he said that the parties "don't have any results yet."
Following are two State Department transcripts of Hill's remarks to reporters on August 4:
(begin transcript)
Assistant Secretary [of State] Christopher Hill
Six Party Talks
Mid Morning Transit St. Regis Hotel
August 4, 2005
A/S [Assistant Secretary] Hill: Good morning. Great to see you again. I'm off to the Embassy. We'll have an internal meeting, and then I'll go out to the negotiating site. I have a meeting scheduled with the Chinese. We'll see if they have some news for us and we'll go from there. You know, I can imagine for you all here it's a little difficult to understand why one or two pages of principles are so difficult to get down on paper. But, you know, just because something is a principle doesn't mean it can be written in a way that's unclear. That is, we really need clarity on these principles. Principles, they may be a general way of expressing something, but it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be clear. So, it's precisely the clarity that we're seeking and that is so necessary. We cannot have a situation where the DPRK pretends to abandon its nuclear programs and we pretend to believe them. We need to have a situation where we know precisely what they have agreed to do -- what they have agreed to abandon, so that we can precisely react to that. So, even though these principles look easy and there are only two pages worth, there does need to be clarity of thought and clarity of purpose -- and it's the clarity that is taking some time to sort out. So, thank you very much and look forward to seeing you again.
QUESTION: What was the reaction in Washington?
A/S Hill: The reaction in Washington? Well, I think everybody in Washington very much wants to see us reach an agreement if we can -- an agreement on these principles so we can move on. I think everyone in Washington would very much like to see us get on with these, try to reach an agreement on these principles so that we can then get right back to negotiating the final document. The Chinese hosts have worked very hard on this. It has not been easy for them. They've had a relationship with the DPRK for a long time and this has not been easy for them. But, we feel this is the right approach. This is right for all the six parties, including the DPRK.
QUESTION: Who are you meeting today?
A/S Hill: I'm going to meet with the Chinese delegation. I've already talked this morning with my Japanese counterpart, with Mr. Sasae, who you may have noticed just came into the lobby here. I'm sure I'll be meeting with the other parties as well.
QUESTION: Sir, do you think there will be a fifth draft?
A/S Hill: I don't know, I mean I think we have agreement among five parties on the Chinese draft. I'm not sure we need additional drafts. I think we need clarity of purpose and I think the DPRK has to make some decisions on that.
QUESTION: Do you think the fourth draft is very clear?
A/S Hill: We had some suggestions for it and I think the other parties did too, but I think we all agree it's a very good draft. It represents a lot of work by the Chinese. You know, I've been in some of these situations before and I know how difficult it is to try to put together a draft that everyone can work off of. So, the Chinese have done a great job and I give them a lot of credit. They've gotten most of us on board to their draft and let's see how they're doing with the DPRK.
QUESTION: So nothing now you can (inaudible) the DPRK?
A/S Hill: Well, the Chinese asked to see me and I'll be seeing them in a couple of hours. We continue to be very active. A couple of days ago the Chinese gave us a draft, which was described as the draft that should be the basis of the final. So, we responded. The Russian Federation responded. The ROK, Republic of Korea responded. Japan, Government of Japan responded. So, let's see what the DPRK says. The DPRK has got to make some very basic decisions. It's not easy for them. I don't want to pressure them, but they've got to be able to do it.
QUESTION: How long are you willing to stay here, as long as it takes to reach an agreement?
A/S Hill: Well, as long as we feel it's useful to be here. We believe it was useful to be here yesterday, and I think it will be useful to be here today. So, we'll have to see.
QUESTION: How long can you wait for North Korea to give an answer to the draft?
A/S Hill: I don't know at this point. We have to see. You know, I hope -- presumably their delegation is getting instructions. I hope they've asked for instructions. We have to see. We'll be here as long as it is useful to be here.
QUESTION: What's going to happen if North Korea rejects the draft?
A/S Hill: Why are you asking me a hypothetical question? You know, no one in the State Department has ever answered one of those. So, I'm not going to be the first. But look, this makes a lot of sense for the DPRK. They've got thousands of problems and nuclear weapons help them with none of them. Nuclear weapons don't solve a single DPRK problem. Even the security issue that they talk about, nuclear weapons have nothing to do with helping their security. So, there's a certain resounding logic to all of this and you just hope the people who can think through these things can come to the conclusion that everyone else has come to. All right, thank you very much. Go get some more coffee. Boy, you must have had a lot of coffee the last few days. See you all later.
(end transcript)
(begin transcript)
Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill
With
Japanese Ambassador Sasae
Six Party Talks
Evening Transit St. Regis Hotel
August 4, 2005
Opening statement in Japanese by Ambassador Sasae.
A/S Hill: It's great to see you all and great to be here with my good friend Ken Sasae with whom we have spent a lot of time together in the last couple of weeks. To be sure it was another very busy day, but certainly with the expectation that we are very much getting to the end game. I think anyone who's kept through an experience like this, with so many days, I think we're 11 days -- something like that -- has a real desire to see if we can't reach an agreement. So, we've been working very hard to see if we can bridge the remaining differences. But, I don't want to suggest that those differences are small or insignificant. Those differences are important and especially when one is talking about just a couple of pages of principles, it's important that those principles need to be clear. So, we need to strive for clarity so that when there's a principle written down, everyone knows what that principle means.
So, it has not been an easy process. In fact, it's a very tough process. But, we are very dedicated to doing everything we can do to try to bridge the remaining differences and try to find a solution to this. The Chinese have obviously worked very hard. They have really made excellent technical arrangements, but more importantly than that, they've had a very active delegation in trying to help get the parties together and figure out ways to push the process forward. So, I don't know how much longer this is going to go on. I suspect, not much longer. I suspect we really are getting to the last couple of days of this.
There are differences. There are differences between the DPRK on the one hand and the other participants on the other. As I've said before and I'll say again, it's a very tough issue, but we do need clarity on this issue. In a lot of diplomatic agreements you have something called creative ambiguity where one side can take something, believe something, the other side can believe they've agreed to something else. But, we are talking about nuclear weapons and we cannot have a situation where the North Koreans pretend to abandon their nuclear weapons and we pretend to believe them. So, we need clarity on this issue and that's what's taking so much time, achieving that clarity. So, we're prepared to stay as long as it's useful. I would say today was a useful day and we look forward to doing it again tomorrow and really hoping that we can wrap up soon and head on home. So, thank you very much.
QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, did the North Koreans move at all during the North Korean-South Korean-US talks? Was there any shift in their position?
A/S Hill: Well, you know, I hate to talk about shift in their position because if I said to you, "Yes, the North Koreans shifted their position." They would come back and say, "No, we didn't." So, I don't know if it's really helpful for me to tell you whether they shifted their position. It was a useful meeting to be sure. It was kind of impromptu. Wasn't really planned much in advance. But it's the first time we met together with the North Koreans and the South Koreans. Immediately afterwards, of course, we briefed our Japanese friends very thoroughly on it. You know, one of the things in these talks is even though an awful lot of bilateral meetings go on, we want to make sure there's really transparency so no one gets two different versions of the same meeting.
QUESTION: What about the head delegates' meeting this evening?
A/S Hill: The head delegates' meeting was fairly pro forma and basically it was the Chinese hosts asking us whether we want to continue. I must admit no one wants to continue, but I think we all felt duty bound to continue because I think there is a feeling that we have taken this further than we've ever had in the past, than we've gone in the past, so, we'd like to see if we can get to an agreement. We're not there yet, frankly speaking. We're definitely not there. We do have substantial differences, but I think no one is quite ready to say we cannot get there so I think there's a desire to keep on going.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, did you find any positive sign which indicates the tide is different today?
A/S Hill: Well, maybe I should ask Ken Sasae to answer the question whether there's any real positive sign. I have trouble talking about positive signs because you think something is positive one day, and then you come back the next day and it's not there. So, I think what you have to judge these things by the results, and, frankly speaking, we don't have any results yet. Ken, do you want to take it?
AMBASSADOR SASAE: I think there is lots of effort (unintelligible) before, and I think there was lots of positive proposal also some positive effort. So, I think it's a mix of the thought. I would define that way. But, we do not abandon the hope. There is still time for us to get this.
QUESTION: Is it one of your options not to have a joint statement?
A/S HILL: Well, I think in the event there is not a joint statement -- in the event we fail to get the agreement in principles, which is designed to form the basis of going after an eventual full agreement, then we need to decide what type of statement there would be. Normally in these instances it's a chairman's statement. We need to decide how the talks would end. Would the round be declared over? Would there be a recess or something? So we had some discussion of that today but I think certainly the consensus of opinion was to keep going and see if we can narrow those differences still further.
QUESTION: What is the schedule tomorrow?
A/S HILL: I don't know. I have to think about tonight and I really would like to get some sleep tonight. We'll deal with tomorrow tomorrow, but I'm sure there'll be a lot more meetings. Thank you very much.
QUESTION: What are the Chinese doing to try and persuade the North Koreans?
A/S HILL: Nothing special. I mean, we can talk later.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
