Six-Party Negotiators Seek To Hammer Out Remaining Differences
05 August 2005
North Korea's use of peaceful nuclear energy, verification still at issue
Only a few -- but an important few -- differences are standing in the way of an agreement to begin ridding the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons, says Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill.
Hill has been in Beijing for 12 days of intensive negotiations aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its decades-old nuclear weapons programs. These Six-Party Talks include North and South Korea, Japan, China, Russia and the United States.
Speaking to the press on the morning of August 5, Hill said five of the six countries involved have signed on to a draft agreement. However, he said, there are "some real differences" and "we can't just bridge them by ambiguity."
Among the issues remaining to be resolved is North Korea's use of peaceful nuclear energy. Hill noted that North Korea "has taken research reactors and turned them into bomb-making reactors.... We have to be very, very careful about what we're talking about in terms of the technology."
Verification is also part of the draft of the agreement, Hill said. "At this point one of the principles is that everything needs to be verified," he said. "Precisely how it will be verified will be determined in the next stage. Clearly, there are international methods of verifying issues like nuclear weapons destruction. So, presumably, those negotiations will focus on these well known international approaches to that. But, my concern right now has not so much been verifying as to determine what precisely we will be verifying."
"We would really like to see if we can reach an agreement on these principles," Hill told reporters. "I've got to tell you, I'd be disappointed if we don't get there. But, on the other hand, I know what needs to be done. I know what we have to do to protect our interests in this matter. I also feel pretty good that the six-party process, in addition to being so well organized by the Chinese side, has also I think been pretty successful in bringing a lot of countries together."
Following are two State Department transcripts of Hill's remarks to reporters on August 5:
(begin transcript)
Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill
Six Party Talks
Morning Transit St. Regis Hotel
August 5, 2005
A/S Hill: Good morning. How are you this morning? Well, I would say this game has really kind of gone into extra innings now. Clearly, we're getting very much to the end of this process. We're going to get out there and take another run at trying to resolve the last issues that are out there. Frankly, there are not that many issues, but I don't want to minimize the importance of the issues. There are some real differences and, as I said a couple of days ago, we can't just bridge them by ambiguity. We need to have clarity on what they are and what the resolution is because if we don't have clarity then all these principles are not much use because the idea is to go from principles to writing an actual agreement. And, if you can't agree on what the principles are, it's impossible to write the agreement. So, we really, really need clarity on these matters so we know exactly what we have in mind.
I would say the good news is we know what the substantive differences are -- you don't know, at least I hope you don't know, but I know what the substantive differences are and so we'll really try to see what we can do. All I can say is that we would really like to see if we can reach an agreement on these principles. I've got to tell you, I'd be disappointed if we don't get there. But, on the other hand, I know what needs to be done. I know what we have to do to protect our interests in this matter. I also feel pretty good that the six-party process, in addition to being so well organized by the Chinese side, has also I think been pretty successful in bringing a lot of countries together. I feel closer to my Chinese colleagues as a result -- closer to my Japanese, South Korean, Russian -- and, let's see if we can feel closer to the DPRK. But, we're clearly not there quite yet.
QUESTION: What are the last issues?
A/S Hill: Well, I knew you were going to ask me, and you should also know that I'm not going to tell you. There are some important issues there. There are some issues that I know the press has circulated. There actually have been some accurate press stories on the matter, but I really don't want to get into the substance of it because then I'll have to give my position; and then the other guys will give their position; and then it will just be more difficult to solve. So, if you're interested in going home, don't ask.
QUESTION: Will today be the last day?
A/S Hill: Will today be the last day? I don't know. I hope so. I've been hoping that for the last several days. I can just assure you I'm working as hard and fast as I can. The good news is, we have a lot of countries who agree on what needs to be done. The Chinese circulated a pretty good text. We had five countries signed on. The bad news is, we don't have six countries signed on. We'll see what we can do to work on those remaining issues.
QUESTION: Last night, Qin Gang, the Chinese spokesman, said the measure of a successful six-party talks was not a joint statement or document. Do you agree with that? He also said that each side needs to demonstrate more flexibility.
A/S Hill: Well, I mean if I were the host of a process I would say everyone needs to be flexible. That's a pretty standard thing. If you look at the history of hosts of processes you'll hear that an awful lot. So, I wouldn't be too concerned with calls for flexibility, and I think I feel pretty comfortable about how flexible I've been here. So, I'm not too concerned about that. Your second point?
QUESTION: The measure of success is not a joint statement.
A/S Hill: Well, you know success in these international issues is to maintain your interests, and it's not a success if you reach an agreement at the expense of your interests and our interests here are a nuclear free Korean peninsula. So, if there's an agreement where that interest is not achieved, that can hardly be described as a success, so there's that point. But, we would all like to see if we can get all six countries to sign on to the same concept of what it means to have a denuclearized Korean peninsula. So, if you can get all six signed on to that, you know I'd call that a success.
QUESTION: Did you have any progress last night?
A/S Hill: What time last night?
QUESTION: After 9:00.
A/S Hill: After 9:00...no, not after 9:00, no, but, maybe earlier in the day. There's some sense that we had a little more mutual understanding on what our differences are and some ideas of how to proceed. But, you know, these things - not only does it go up one day and down the next, it can go up one hour and down the next. So, I know you may think you've got a tough job there. Believe me, I'd trade jobs with you anytime right now.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, could you respond to what Mr. Kim Kye-Gwan said last night about peaceful use?
A/S Hill: Well, you know, I think he's expressing his government's position that the DPRK should have peaceful use of nuclear energy. We have a concern with how - looking back to the recent past - at how a research reactor, a reactor that had been publicly described as research, over a course of several weeks really - 2 months - was turned into a weapons producing facility. So clearly, that has to be a concern to anyone looking at the issue of nuclear energy in the DPRK. So, a peaceful facility, a research facility was turned into a weapons producing facility and, by the way, without any secrecy about it. There were public announcements to that effect. So, I have to be very concerned with how that's done.
QUESTION: How do you think of compromise proposal? Logistics, I mean.
A/S Hill: Oh, you want me to tell you what my fall back positions are? We're going to see what we can achieve here. I don't want to get into what could be a compromise or not a compromise. We've got to have an agreement that protects our interest.
QUESTION: What's your plan today?
A/S Hill: What's my plan today? Well, I'm going to go out to the site. Have my 10th cup of coffee and probably meet with the Chinese hosts. That's probably the key meeting that I'll have today. I expect to have a lot of other bilaterals. Of course, we're in constant contact with Ken Sasae and Song Min Soon - probably talk to them. I know I have a plan to see the Russians, and yes, I may also see the DPRK. So, it looks like a very busy day. And I hope - in terms of - you know I'd hate for you all to wait out here all the time so I hope we can work a better arrangement where you know I'm coming and you can go have coffee, or do whatever you do.
QUESTION: What is your understanding of what China is doing to persuade North Korea or clarify their position, or to bring them around to signing some sort of agreement?
A/S Hill: Well, I think China has a great interest in making sure we have a successful six-party process. You know when you're a host, it's good to be a host, you have a lot of influence, but you have a lot of responsibility to try to make sure things work. And you've got responsibility to get everyone signed on to documents, especially when, you as the host, have put out the drafts yourself. So, the Chinese put out a fourth draft to be sure various participants, including my own government, had comments to it, but, then one country had a rather major issue with it and that was the DPRK. So, we had to see what could be done to bring them on board. We would like for there to be an agreement. I mean I didn't come here for twelve days to walk away from this thing lightly. We would really like to see if we could have an agreement. But, it's got to be an agreement that's consistent with our interests and nuclear weapons are a very, very serious matter and it's not something you can kid around with or pretend you have an agreement when you don't have an agreement.
QUESTION: Has any of the discussion in the past few days involved verification issues?
A/S Hill: Well, you know, verification issues will be taken up in the drafting of the actual agreement. That is, at this point one of the principles is that everything needs to be verified. But, how it's verified - precisely how it will be verified will be determined in the next stage. Clearly, there are international methods of verifying issues like nuclear weapons destruction. So, presumably, those negotiations will focus on these well known international approaches to that. But, my concern right now has not so much been verifying as to determine what precisely we will be verifying. So, verification will absolutely be a key factor, but probably not for this stage.
QUESTION: Access issues have been discussed at this stage?
A/S Hill: Well, we've gotten to the principle where everything that's agreed has to be verified. That is, we're not going to just agree to things and assume that somehow goodwill of the parties will make sure there done. There has to be a verification regime and I think people are pretty clear about that. But, as I said, these verification regimes involve some very specific international standards of how it's done. And, of course, they will have to involve access. At this point what we're concerned about is to remove any possibility that there could be disagreements on what is to be verified. So, now we look at what's to be verified, later we'll look at how to verify it. Well, thank you very much. I really ought to get to work. Believe me this is more fun than where I'm going. I'll see you all later.
QUESTION: How many shirts do you have left?
A/S Hill: Two. Down to two. So, book your flight.
(end transcript)
(begin transcript)
Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill
Six Party Talks
Evening Transit St. Regis Hotel
August 5, 2005
A/S Hill: Well, we had another long day - made a little progress, but I must say we didn't make enough progress. Frankly, I think we're going to have to pick up the pace if we're going to get there. Our strategy was to try to clean up a lot of the smaller issues and see if we could take care of them. We found it a rather excruciating process where we didn't really make as much progress as we planned. I'm going to have meetings tomorrow with our hosts, the Chinese. I'll also talk to the head of the North Korean delegation, the head of the DPRK delegation to see if we can get moving on this because really the progress - I mean we've got some things done, but it's not as much as I'd like and it's not going to get us there in the time span that I think we ought to get there.
QUESTION: Mr. Hill, we understand that the North Koreans raised some new objections. Do you think they're really serious or just looking for things to (inaudible)?
A/S Hill: Well, it's funny, sometimes in a normal negotiation you try to reduce so called brackets - bracketed language. You try to reduce the number of sentences that are in dispute, and this seems to be a process here where you take one step forward by getting a sentence out of brackets by getting everyone to agree to it and the next thing you know some other sentence is put into brackets. So, I looked at it, I talked to the team because this was being done, not at my level, but by a drafting team, and I just felt that it was disappointing, in terms of, how fast we were going. Now, to be sure there was a net gain. I don't want to imply there wasn't any progress, but I just felt it ought to be better than that.
You know, we had decided we were going to go after some of these issues that are sort of out there, sort of clean up some of those issues, before we go to the bigger issues, before we once again address the bigger issues. It's not like we haven't been addressing those a lot but, you know, it was sort of 3 yards and a cloud of dust. That's an American football metaphor for those of you who don't know. And, I just (sound of plates crashing in the background) - We didn't have any problem like that. (sound of laughter) But, I do think we ought to go a little faster. So, tomorrow morning I'm going to talk to our Chinese hosts. I'm going to give him my sense of how we did today. I'm going to talk to the DPRK head of delegation who was not present at these discussions. I'm going to look at some of the bracketed language myself and just see what we can do because we've really, really got to get going on this because it's been too long. I've had to change a bunch of reservations and I really think we need to try and move it along.
QUESTION: Secretary Hill, South Korean chief negotiator mentioned creative ambiguity in addressing the dispute. Do you think that creative ambiguity can resolve the dispute over peaceful use of nuclear energy?
A/S Hill: Well, I think I've said before, creative ambiguity works in a lot of things. But, I'm a little reluctant to have them in nuclear weapons negotiations, especially when we're talking about trying to devise principles that will guide our discussion to create the eventual agreement. I think we need some real clarity: clarity of thought, clarity of written expression. So, I think we're going to have to stick with the idea of clarity. You know, I'm not contradicting anyone. I don't know the context of that remark. But, I do know that I need to explain what it is the North Koreans, what it is the DPRK has agreed to do. And they have a right to know what it is we're planning to do. So, I think we've got to kind of stick with clarity here.
QUESTION: Secretary Hill, are you going to talk about the possibility of recess?
A/S Hill: Well, you know recess is one of the sort of termination scenarios where the idea would be we take some time and delegations go back to capitals and we all go back to capitals and give it some thought and talk to some people and come back in order to solve the problem. So, it's definitely an idea out there. What you don't want to do, though, is have a recess and then have the progress you've made, and I want to assure you there has been progress in this, and you don't want to have that progress slip way. I mean, we have been rolling this rock up this hill side and we don't want it to roll all the way back down to the base of the hill again. So, I think the issue of the recess is to figure out how, if we want to go that route, we want to make sure we've really locked in the progress so that when people go back to their capitals we don't start from the beginning again. You know, twelve days is a long time, but thirteen months is an even longer time. And, I think you do you have to remember these negotiations were inexplicably held up for thirteen months. When we started again we found that we had to address some real basic issues again. So, going into a recess we really want to be careful not to have to start from the beginning.
QUESTION: Ambassador Hill, tomorrow, this weekend is going to be the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima. Does that in any way influence the fact that we're dealing with nuclear weapons here and get the parties to the table so that they're never used again.
A/S Hill: Well, I mean, I think...frankly, look, I'm a diplomat. I'm working on a text which I can assure to you, would look awfully boring. I'm really trying to get through this text. It's a very important thing to get through. Obviously I have some personal thoughts about any time you think about the use of nuclear weapons, but I'd rather kind of stick to what I have to do.
QUESTION: Are you going to be here through the weekend?
A/S Hill: Where else do you think I'm going to be? (laughter)
QUESTION: Did the North Koreans raise the nuclear deal with Iran today and what (inaudible) do you think that deal has (inaudible)?
A/S Hill: They did not raise the nuclear deal with Iran. I mean, obviously, as we followed, as we pursued the nuclear deal with the DPRK, certainly Iran has come up at various times. It's an example of why we really need to deal with these problems. But, I don't want to suggest there's a lot of cross-pollination there.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, regarding peaceful use, your side is insisting on the obligation of NPT. North Korea is insisting on the light reactors. Did the Chinese authority provide any modified version of text or phrase which can square your ideal with North Korean side?
A/S Hill: Well, the answer to your question is no. But, you know this is one of the issues we have to resolve. You know we have a state that has taken research reactors and turned them into bomb making reactors and I think we all have to bear that in mind. So, we have to be very, very careful about what we're talking about in terms of the technology. I mean this is truly one of the great challenges in the world today is dealing with nuclear technology as the question there about Iran implied and I think we have to be very conscience of this. All right. You know, it's Friday night and I think, I don't even know where it is - Oh, okay. We're inviting you all up for a beer. So, where? Ask someone over there. I think it's this way. So, we don't have a lot of beer, but I think there's one for everybody. I know you all are tired. I'm exhausted. Unfortunately, this is going to go on a little longer. I keep hoping it won't. I keep having airplane reservations. In fact, I was supposed to be at the Washington Nationals, San Diego baseball game tomorrow night in Washington, but I'm going to miss it. I'm going to miss it because I'll be dealing with the six-party talks. So, all right, we thought we'd invite all the six-party hostages up for a beer. So, if you've got a second, come join us.
Thank you very much.
(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 |
|
|
|
