Six-Party Talks Stall over Issue of Light-Water Reactors
15 September 2005
North Korea insists on civilian nuclear energy program, U.S. negotiator says
The Six-Party Talks aimed at eliminating North Korea's nuclear weapons programs have stalled over the issue of light-water reactors for civilian energy uses, according to the top U.S. negotiator at the talks.
Speaking to reporters in Beijing at the end of the day September 15, Ambassador Christopher Hill said the North Korean delegation "made it clear that their main issue … is a light-water reactor."
But no delegation in the talks, which also include South Korea, Japan, China and Russia, is prepared to offer North Korea a light-water reactor, he said.
North Korea currently is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Hill pointed out, adding: "Therefore, they are not eligible. No country would transfer nuclear materials to a country that is not in the NPT."
"At the same time," Hill reported, North Korea officials "made very clear that they will not dismantle their existing programs until they have a light-water reactor. Unless they dismantle these existing programs, they have no chance of getting back into the NPT. So, we're in a bit of a stand-off at this point and we have to see how this plays out."
North Korea's nuclear weapons programs revolve around gas-graphite reactors that produce plutonium that can be used in nuclear weapons. Light-water reactors are considered safer in that they produce less weapons-usable material.
A shortage of electrical energy has reached critical proportions in North Korea, and South Korea has offered an attractive program that would provide conventional power within just a few years, Hill noted. "But, increasingly, it is clear that the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] is not so concerned about electricity and much more concerned about a light-water reactor," he observed.
According to Hill, Pyongyang adopted the position beginning in the 1990s "that a light-water reactor was the answer to their problems," even though their national transmission and distribution system is "essentially broken down."
"But again, they are not interested in distribution or transit problems for electricity. They are interested in a light-water reactor," he said.
"In short," Hill said, "one gets the impression that this is not so much an economic development issue or an energy issue, but rather a political issue and an issue relating to the idea that they want to have a sort of trophy project. I think it is fair to say that we have a rather major disagreement at this point."
Hill reiterated his faith in the workability of a proposed agreement that was hammered out nearly a month ago. "We're going to be patient about it," he said. "(W)e're prepared to be here as long as we can make progress."
"It really will come down to a very simple issue," Hill said. "Is the DPRK interested in a diplomatic solution, with all that that implies? Are they prepared to work out compromises and propose different ideas and, frankly, be reasonable?"
For more information, see U.S. Policy Toward North Korea.
Following are the transcripts of briefings Hill gave the evening of September 14 and on September 15, as provided by the State Department:
(begin transcript)
Assistant Secretary [of State] Christopher Hill
Six Party Talks
Evening Transit China World Hotel
September 14, 2005
A/S [assistant secretary] Hill: Hi. How are you? Hi. I've already eaten. Well, today we had our first full day of the six party talks. It consisted of quite a few bilateral meetings. I think my delegation met with all the delegations. The meeting with the DPRK delegation took place this afternoon after lunch. It was a rather lengthy meeting. But I must say it was a meeting in which we did not make a lot of progress. The DPRK is quite insistent that they want to include in the agreement a light-water reactor.
As you know, we are basing our talks on the fourth draft that the Chinese delegation circulated a few days before we closed the meeting in early August. And, the fourth draft does not discuss a light-water reactor. So, I spent a considerable amount of time explaining to the DPRK delegation that the United States, neither the United States nor any other participant in the six party process was prepared to fund a light-water reactor.
And in fact, I reiterated the proposals that are in the fourth draft. That is a conventional energy proposal, security guarantees, economic assistance, and recognition ideas, or establishment of relations ideas and, tried to make clear that this is a pretty comprehensive approach that I think would be in the DPRK's interest to study hard and get to a yes on.
It's very clear that they wanted to spend today making this the light-water reactor day. I hope this does not become light-water reactor week because there are not too many other ways I know how to say no without slipping into another language. So, I have made it very clear and I think they other delegations have made it clear, although I'll let them speak for themselves, that nobody is prepared to fund a light-water reactor and that they should rather focus on the elements that are on the table and understand that those elements would, I think, be very beneficial.
Question: Is the light-water reactor the only problem that the United States has now with the DPRK?
A/S Hill: Well they seemed to...first of all, it's not just the United States. As I said, none of the other delegations is interested in providing a light-water reactor. Certainly, I got the impression that this was an issue the DPRK wanted to focus on. And so, while I tried to have a broader discussion on other elements, they kept returning to the subject of the light-water reactor. So to answer your question, I don't know if this is the only problem, but certainly it is a major problem. I want to stress that the DPRK has had something called a graphite-moderated nuclear technology. They have one reactor that has functioned and this one reactor is the reactor in Yongbyon. Although they have engaged in this technology for some twenty-five years, they have not used this technology for electricity. Rather they've used this technology to develop weapons-grade plutonium. So the idea of a light-water reactor would be some kind of change from their considerable experience with the graphite-moderated reactors, which, as I stress, have not been used up until now for electricity but rather for the development of weapons grade plutonium.
Question: What was the DPRK's rational, reason why they could demand light-water reactor?
A/S Hill: Well, I think, you'll have to ask them, but they... their argument is that they need nuclear power because they do not have considerable deposits of oil or natural gas and that they have some trace amounts of uranium, I guess. Our point is that the proposal we've put forward includes a rather substantial conventional energy proposal. This is something the Republic of Korea has included in the draft. The conventional energy proposal would provide the equivalent energy that was envisioned in the agreed framework. But, most importantly, it would move rather quickly. That is, they would be able to build this within two and a half to three years. Any type of reactor, light-water reactor, is a much longer-term project. So, if the issue is electricity, if the question is how to get electricity to DPRK villages, towns and cities, clearly the proposal that is in the fourth draft is a preferred way to go. Yet, it was very clear the DPRK is interested in continuing its nuclear program.
Question: Were your expectations higher than it used to be?
A/S Hill: I came expecting that at some point the DPRK would raise the issue of the light-water reactor. This has come up in the last few weeks. And, as I said, I think today was light-water reactor day. So, I really spent a considerable amount of time making sure that they understand our position very clearly. I want to stress that this was a businesslike meeting. There was no acrimony or anything. We... it went on for some time but I think it is very important that we be honest and make clear that a light-water reactor is simply not on the table.
Question: Is it your impression is they're stalling?
A/S Hill: No, I didn't say they're stalling. I think they were asking for a light-water reactor and we were answering. Frankly, the other delegations have also made clear that a light-water reactor is not part of the Chinese fourth draft. And, it's the Chinese fourth draft that forms, that is, was -- we would like to see as the basis for the eventual agreement.
Question: Can you say how long the talks were with the DPRK and now, given these talks, how long do you think this week's session is going to go?
A/S Hill: Well, I'm sure you're anxious to get home, we're all anxious to get home, but I can't answer that question at this point.
Question: How long were the talks with the DPRK?
Question: Did North Korea [inaudible]?
A/S Hill: Well, you'll have to ask the North Koreans. They're in a much better position to tell you whether they're going to back down or not. Certainly I made very clear that a light-water reactor is not part of what we're doing here. And, I think it's important that it wasn't just the United States, but the other countries also made very clear that a country that has withdrawn from the NPT, that has kicked out international inspectors, is not a member of IAEA process is really not a country that should be looking to develop nuclear energy at this point. It should be a country that's looking to, first of all, get its economy on its feet and figure out a way back into these organizations.
Question: Did they ask things from you like a new light-water reactor?
A/S Hill: I don't think they wanted a used reactor, I think they want a new one.
Question: What I meant was did they want resumption of the construction of [inaudible]?
A/S Hill: It's not clear whether they want a resumption of the construction of a light-water reactor or whether they want something new, or something different. But clearly, they're looking for a light-water reactor.
Question: Will you continue the bilateral talks with North Korea tomorrow?
A/S Hill: Absolutely, I mean, we're here to try to reach an agreement. It frequently happens in a negotiation, a multi-day negotiation, where one delegation has an instruction to try to seek something. And so, they have made very clear they're looking for a light-water reactor. And that the issue of...you know, often this has been described as a matter of finding peaceful use of nuclear energy, but in fact what this is, is to have the other parties build a light-water reactor for a country that is not in compliance with, or not a member right now of the NPT and certainly not in compliance with IAEA safeguards. So, it's something all the other participants have made very clear they are not prepared to do
Question: Mr. Ambassador ...[inaudible]?
A/S Hill: Well first of all, I'm not going to speculate on whether we're going to get an agreement or not. We'll know that at some point but you know, we're not there yet. We have not had an in-depth discussion of the question of the so-called scope of dismantlement. That is, what they're prepared to do away with. In the past, however, it's been very clear that the North Koreans have understood that the name of the game here is to get rid of all their, all these nuclear weapons programs and anything related, and that has been defined to mean all of their programs. I think it's very important to understand that of all the North Korean nuclear energy programs up until now, all of them have been related to weapons. Not a single light bulb has been turned on as a result of a nuclear reactor in North Korea. Rather, the nuclear reactor, the one at Yongbyon, which is the only one that has been active, has been used to harvest plutonium.
Question: Mr. Ambassador, light-water reactor is a kind of tactic. Are they going to make this issue as a kind of hostage for giving up all of the nuclear weapons? Otherwise, they are serious, this is a kind of showstopper for them. What's your observation of their tactics?
A/S Hill: Well again, I mean, we're in the middle of a negotiation, and it's not very polite of me to start characterizing what I think of their tactics. But, I think it was very important that, first of all, that we maintained a businesslike environment -- and I think we've been able to do that -- and secondly that we be very, very clear and not lead anyone to the conclusion that that we're willing to do something that we're not willing to do. And so, I simply want to repeat again that nobody is willing to provide a light-water reactor. These are reactors that cost a considerable amount of money. They take a considerable amount of time. And, in the meantime, the same amount of energy can be, can...the same amount of electricity can be pumped into the DPRK in a much shorter time and we get the DPRK lit up a little more than it is today. So we hope that their request...that they understand that no one is providing them with a light-water reactor.
Question: What was the DPRK's response to South Korea's energy proposal?
A/S Hill: Well, they have been careful. I think they're studying it. They're looking at it. I don't think they've given a final response to it. I think it's clear that they prefer to have a light-water reactor. Certainly that was the implication today, but we'll have to see. My understanding is they have not rejected this.
Question: On the sidelines of the light-water reactor, has any progress been made on nuclear weapons?
A/S Hill: Well again, we consider denuclearization the fundamental task of this negotiation. And we have, I think, a pretty good formula in the agreement for dealing with denuclearization. And it's our contention, the contention of the various participants, that this is the way to go. We have to see whether, at the end of the day, the DPRK will agree with us, but we believe we have a pretty good formula for dealing with that.
Question: So that's the only obstacle they have thrown up to...?
A/S Hill: Well again, one has to be careful with these things, because certainly that has been, that was the issue du jour--today, at any rate. But it could...some other issue could come up. For now the issue they raised was the light-water reactor issue.
Question: Would China say that other countries [inaudible]?
A/S Hill: I think it's fair to say that nobody is stepping forward and putting down the 2 or 3 billion dollars it would take to build a light-water reactor. I think that's correct.
Question: [Inaudible]
A/S Hill: Well, you sound like the American delegation. But absolutely, I think what the DPRK needs to do is get out of this nuclear business and get into the business of providing electricity for their citizens, get into the business of integrating their economy with the rest of the world economy, and improving relations with the United States, with Japan, with other countries. And, good relations with states like the United States and Japan, I think, will very much help the DPRK as it goes forward.
Question: After five weeks' recession, do you feel like you came back to the same table or is there any difference?
A/S Hill: Well, that's a very good question. I think that was something I was very concerned about, but, as you recall, when we broke up in early August, the issue was light-water reactor, and we made it clear then what our attitude was. And we made it clear today. So, in a certain respect we have picked up where we left off. And, the only thing is, I think today was probably more of light-water reactor than most of us were planning on. But, as I said, if we just have a light-water reactor day and not a light-water reactor week, it'll be OK.
Question: Will you talk with the North Korean delegation tomorrow?
A/S Hill: I assume I'll talk to them tomorrow. In fact, we agreed that we would break the discussions today and then we would pick up tomorrow. So I look forward to discussing with them tomorrow and I hope we can discuss some other aspects of the fourth draft.
Question: Mr. Ambassador, your main rationale to object to the light-water reactor come from the concern about the proliferation concerns?
A/S Hill: Well, we think...the DPRK, I think, needs to be a little realistic about what it needs to do to get its economy going and get its energy needs met. And, here we have a proposal on the table which is provided by the Republic of Korea. And, I think other countries are interested. I know my country is very interested in looking at this proposal and studying what the energy needs are. So, this was a very significant proposal that the Republic of Korea has put forward. And, I think, most importantly, it's something that could begin as early as two and a half years from now and would actually involve the construction of some transmission lines. I think anyone who knows a little about the North Korean electrical system knows that in the past fifteen years, there has been a considerable decline in the electricity in the DPRK, caused not so much by the loss of power-generating facilities, as it has been caused by the loss of transmission and the sheer waste and deterioration of the transmission and distribution lines.
So, what the ROK is doing is coming forward with a proposal that would begin to address the problem, at least in terms of transmission. So, I think it really provided the platform for others to be looking carefully and seeing what we can do to help this situation. It gives no one any pleasure that the DPRK is literally one of the darkest countries in the world because of the lack of electrical grids. I mean, the fact that today they have difficulty with having an integrated grid within the country. So, I think it's a very good proposal, and what's most important is that it could get going soon. And to talk about a light-water reactor, where we're talking seven, eight, maybe nine or ten years out is probably not what the DPRK needs at this point.
Question: Mr. Hill, in all these discussions about the light-water reactor, has North Korea ever agreed to dismantle everything first?
A/S Hill: You know, we've had discussions about the so-called question of the scope of dismantlement and let me just characterize those discussions as very positive discussions. We've had those discussions in July and August. We did not have a chance, really, to discuss dismantlement issues today, the first day, the first full day of the talks, because the issue of light-water reactors pretty much crowded out every other discussion. But certainly in the past, with respect to dismantlement we've had positive discussions on that.
So, I think you all ought to go home now. I don't have anything more to say.
Thank you.
(end transcript)
(begin transcript)
Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill
Six Party Talks
Morning Transit - China World Hotel
Beijing, China
September 15, 2005
A/S Hill: Good morning. Anyway, I'm going to go back to the talks, so I have a meeting with the DPRK delegation at some time before noon, and we'll see where we are. As I said, yesterday was a long day. We didn't make much progress. Let's see if we can do a little better today.
Question: The light-water reactors are a deal breaker for the U.S.?
A/S Hill: Well, you know, I don't want to use terms like "deal breaker." That's your term, but it's - the light-water reactor for us is a non-starter. We have a pretty good deal on the table. The deal consists of really a lot of what the DPRK should want: security guarantees, a recognition package, entry - or access - to international financial institutions, and a very serious energy package; an energy package that would really in a very practical way address the very difficult electrical problems in the DPRK. And instead of discussing this rather comprehensive and carefully put-together package, we ended up discussing something that's not on the table: light-water reactors.
Question: What about patience, Mr. Hill? Is the U.S. prepared to go the distance with this?
A/S Hill: I have a lot of patience. That's not my problem. [Laughter]
Question: Can you tell us what will happen if North Korea does nothing vis-à-vis this? Will there be another round with that, or just an end of the talks?
A/S Hill: Well, I don't know. I mean, our view on the talks is we're prepared to participate in the talks as long as we believe the talks are in fact useful. But for talks to be useful, it's not up to just us. It's up to other participants to make use of them. So, I would hope the DPRK, would focus on what the proposal was - the fourth draft - and go through it very carefully, and determine what's in their country's interests. I do know that what is in that package is very generous, and is something, if I were a DPRK official, I would not want to see pass by.
Question: What do you think of the statement by President Bush that Iran can have the right to choose the nuclear energy - saying that it's a right of a government to want to have a civilian-based program? But this is quite...
A/S Hill: Well, I think the President's words speak for themselves, but I think the issue here with the DPRK is we have put together a comprehensive package to deal with a - with the issue here, and have chosen to focus on something not in the package. So, if their concern is electricity, there's a very generous electricity package. If their concern is something else, they ought to be clear with us and tell us what that is. Thank you very much.
Question: Secretary Hill, do you expect any progress today?
A/S Hill: I don't know. Do you? [laughter] I don't know. I mean, what I expect or don't expect is really not important. I'm going to go back there and we're going to have a discussion and we'll see where we are. Thank you very...
Question: What is the schedule for another meeting with North Korea?
A/S Hill: I'm sorry?
Question: What is the schedule for another meeting with North Korea?
A/S Hill: I'm going to meet with them late this morning.
Question: Will there be meetings other delegations? What about other delegations? Chinese? Or Japan?
A/S Hill: You mean their meeting with the...?
Question: No. What about delegations except the North Koreans?
A/S Hill: I'm not sure. I think I have a meeting with the Japanese delegation, and I'm sure I'm meeting with the others, but I just don't know the schedule.
Question: Also, are you going to show - are you going to bring to show any concessions in [inaudible]?
A/S Hill: Well, I - again, we have a good proposal on the table. We had a good proposal on the table when we left in August. Everyone took some time to think about it: thirty-seven days, to be precise. And let's hear what the DPRK thinks about the proposal. We think it's very good, and we think the Chinese fourth draft is the basis for getting this thing solved, and moving along. You know, the DPRK has been engaged in nuclear energy now for some 25 years. They have not succeeded in turning it into electricity. They have succeeded in turning it into plutonium metal. I think one should keep that in mind when one talks about further enhancement of their nuclear programs. Thank you very much.
(end transcript)
(begin transcript)
Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill
Six Party Talks
Evening Transit China World Hotel
Beijing, China
September 15, 2005
A/S Hill: Hi, how are you doing today?
QUESTION: How was the meeting today? Will you continue the talks tomorrow?
A/S Hill: Well, I've got to be to be very frank with you tonight. There wasn't much progress today. I don't want to exaggerate. There wasn't any progress today. The DPRK, the North Korean delegation, has really made it clear that their main issue, by the likes of what happened today their only issue, is a light-water reactor. They want the provision of a light-water reactor. As you know, no delegation is prepared to offer North Korea a light-water reactor. That has to do with the fact that North Korea is not n the NPT at this time. Therefore, they are not eligible. No country would transfer nuclear materials to a country that is not in the NPT.
At the same time, the DPRK made very clear that they will not dismantle their existing programs until they have a light-water reactor. Unless they dismantle these existing programs they have no chance of getting back into the NPT. So, we're in a bit of a stand-off at this point and we have to see how this plays out.
We have, I think, a very solid, a very comprehensive proposal on the table which addresses electricity needs. But, increasingly it is clear that the DPRK is not so concerned about electricity and much more concerned about a light-water reactor. We also have a number of economic proposals on the table but, unfortunately, I don't think they are all that interested in the economic proposals. Security guarantees are on the table. But again, they haven't addressed those. It has really, in the last couple of days, come down to their desire to have a light-water reactor.
This has to do, to some extent, with a view they got from the 1990's that a light-water reactor was the answer to their problems. I tried to point out the difficulties that they have had with their electricity, the fact that their national grid has essentially broken down. It is broken down not because of the power plant situation but mainly because of transmission and distribution problems. But again, they are not interested in distribution or transit problems for electricity. They are interested in a light-water reactor.
In short, one gets the impression that this is not so much an economic development issue or an energy issue but rather a political issue and an issue relating to the idea that they want to have a sort of trophy project. I think it is fair to say that we have a rather major disagreement at this point.
QUESTION: What is the next step if this round of talks reaches a dead end, sir?
A/S Hill: Well, it's hard to say. I mean, we have made our position very clear on this. I talked to the Chinese hosts. As you know, the light-water reactor is an issue that has come up fairly recently and that's reflected in the fact that it was not included in the first Chinese draft. It was not included in the second Chinese draft, not in the third, nor in the fourth Chinese draft. That was due to the fact that the light-water reactor is something that people cannot provide the DPRK as long as they are outside of the NPT and that's where they are. That's where they are likely to stay unless they dismantle these nuclear weapons programs. So, we have a problem there. We were certainly very clear, very honest, very businesslike in explaining this problem to the DPRK delegation so I hope they will take another look at this. You know, we're going to be patient about it. But, I must be very clear, we were not able to make an progress today.
QUESTION: Do you expect the talks to continue for some time?
A/S Hill: Obviously they can't continue forever because our purpose in being here...we're prepared to be here as long as we can make progress. I think we are going to have to play this by ear and see where we are. We're certainly going to be here tomorrow and we will see how we do tomorrow. It was not very good news today, or yesterday for that matter.
QUESTION: Do you think that a recess might be a good idea or a bad idea?
A/S Hill: Well, you know we had one recess. It was supposed to be a 21 day recess. Everyone was prepared to return after 21 days except the DPRK needed another two weeks or so. So, the recess lasted 37 days. Again, we want to solve this problem. We have a great interest in trying to solve this problem through diplomatic means. Everybody's got to have an interest in solving the problem through diplomatic means. To solve a problem through diplomatic means involves various countries making some compromises. A number of us made a number of compromises as we went through drafts one, two, three and four and now we have an element that wasn't present in any of those drafts coming back and seeming to make up a lot of the negotiating time right now. So, it's very hard to predict at this point but clearly we have a serious problem.
QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, are you considering to set a kind of a deadline in order to put pressure on the North Koreans?
A/S Hill: There may be a point at which we will look at a deadline. We're not there yet. Two days is a long time if you have been sitting in the negotiation. But, on the other hand, two days is not such a long time overall. We'll have to see how this plays out. Today one did not get much of a sense that the DPRK was going to change its mind on this. It really will come down to a very simple issue. Is the DPRK interested in a diplomatic solution, with all that that implies? Are they prepared to work out compromises and propose different ideas and, frankly, be reasonable. Certainly, looking at how they handled themselves today we have to be a little concerned about that.
QUESTION: So no room for concession on U.S. side? We are kind of waiting for that.
A/S Hill: I'd be careful about this idea of concessions. There is a basic problem here of a country that is outside of the non-proliferation treaty, outside of IAEA safeguards. These are decisions the DPRK made on its own. They took a very fateful decision to pull out of these structures and to begin producing weapons grade plutonium and now they are asking to be given nuclear technology at a time when they are outside these structures. They cannot get back into these structures unless they do something about dismantling these weapons programs and yet they don't seem to be interested in doing that until they get this light-water reactor. So, it's a big problem but it's a problem that they, frankly, have put themselves in. I might add, not for the first time. The DPRK has a rather sad and long history of making the wrong decision on things.
QUESTION: Sir, are you ready to propose a fifth draft?
A/S Hill: A fifth draft? No, I am certainly not ready to propose a fifth draft. We had a fourth draft that we all thought was pretty good. The DPRK has a whole new concept now and I think the Chinese are talking to the DPRK about this. People worked very hard on those four drafts and we all made a lot of compromises on those drafts in order to get where we were. Four countries provided comments to the Chinese on those various drafts. The only country that didn't provide written comments was DPRK. Now, apparently, they have a whole new concept. So, it's a problem for all of us. I want to stress that we all want to solve this through diplomatic means but we're going to have to have the DPRK with the same frame of mind if we are going to make progress.
QUESTION: Are the other five participants in the talks, other than the DPRK, more or less in accord with where you are now on this, do you believe?
A/S Hill: I believe we are and, frankly, the issue of whether you want to give them a light-water reactor or not, I think everyone agrees you can't give them a light-water reactor because they are outside the non-proliferation treaty. I don't think there's any country that wants to put itself at risk with respect to that treaty.
QUESTION: When they get back to the NPT is it okay to have a light-water reactor?
A/S Hill: To get back to the NPT involves a lot of dismantlement and getting into IAEA safeguards. It's a very hypothetical question at this point because the DPRK has not indicated that they are prepared to do that.
QUESTION: They actually want the full reactor to be built, to be completed, the whole thing operational and then they will start giving up their nuclear weapons?
A/S Hill: Well, it's hard to say. That's certainly what they said to us. Whether that's ultimately their final position, I don't know. That's what they're certainly are indicating.
They feel that in the past they were too generous with the international community and they've said we've learned our lesson there and now we are looking to get what we want before we give up what we have. But, you'll have to ask them.
QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, China seems to be taking a neutral position today. The Foreign Ministry spokesman said that they are not opposed to having a light-water reactor being on the agenda for discussion, of course, to be negotiated among the different parties. How do you view what they said?
A/S Hill: Well, I don't know. I haven't seen the announcement. This was a press conference?
QUESTION: It was a regular briefing.
A/S Hill: I didn't see it. I do know that China plays two roles. First they have the role as the member of the negotiating team. Secondly, they have the role as the secretariat. In that later role obviously they are always trying to look for some common ground and look for a way forward. But, I think as any non-proliferation expert in the Chinese government will tell you the same thing I've told you which is that for a country which is not in the NPT, and not in the NPT because of its own choice, a decision that it made on its own, there really cannot be a discussion of giving it nuclear technology.
QUESTION: What has been the active role of the Chinese delegation today with the DPRK?
A/S Hill: The Chinese delegation has had some meetings with the DPRK and they were meeting with them this evening and I have not heard the outcome of that meeting. So, presumably tomorrow morning we will have some conversations with the Chinese and we'll know if they have been able to identify a way forward. We would like a way forward. We would like the Chinese hosts, who we feel do have a lot of abilities and contacts with the DPRK, to identify a way forward. We have to see if they have been successful in that regard.
QUESTION: Can a light-water reactor be (inaudible) in the hands of North Korea?
A/S Hill: You have to talk to experts in light-water reactors. I think the layman's explanation is that they are less prone to abuse but that doesn't mean that they are a perfect system that can prevent misuse. They would involve a lot of technical inspections and certainly that's not something that's available now as long as the DPRK is outside of the international system. The DPRK, and not for the first time, has chosen to isolate itself. As we discuss this light-water reactor I think it is very important to keep in mind what's on the table and what the DPRK seems not interested in. What was on the table, or what continues to be on the table is an electrical solution, a solution that tries to deal with their electrical problems. One has to ask the question, why have they focused on this light-water reactor? Why are they not focusing on conventional power that could be provided by South Korea or power that could be provided by other neighbors? Why are they so singularly minded on the light-water reactors? I don't know the answer to that. You have to ask them.
QUESTION: Are you going to meet with the North Korean delegation tomorrow?
A/S Hill: I don't have anything scheduled right now to meet with the DPRK delegation. I met with them today. I met with them yesterday. When I met with someone usually there is a purpose and we have to identify what the purpose would be.
QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, the South Korean Unification Minister is in Pyongyang right now and he said he is carrying a personal message from you to the North. Can you tell us what that message is?
A/S Hill: I'm sorry. I haven't seen what he said but I had a very good conversation with Minister Chung only three days ago. It seems like three weeks ago at this point. I talked to him about my desire to try to move forward and try to find a solution to this problem. We want very much to support the inter-Korean dialogue. We hope that the six party talks can be supportive of the inter-Korean dialogue and that the inter-Korean dialogue can be supportive of the six party process and to do that we need to be in touch with one another.
QUESTION: Will you have a meeting with the Chinese delegation tomorrow?
A/S Hill: We don't have anything scheduled but I am sure we will be meeting with them tomorrow.
QUESTION: A bilateral one or multi....?
A/S Hill: I don't know at this point except to say that I'm sure that we will be meeting with the Chinese delegation. We do have scheduled meetings with the Republic of Korea delegation and the Japanese delegation. I had a lunch with the Russian delegation today and probably will see them tomorrow as well.
QUESTION: Mr. Hill there are people saying that (inaudible) so if the DPRK insists on this stance do you think it's going to be a deal breaker by some time this weekend?
A/S Hill: Again, I don't like to use words like that. Those are your words. At this point I haven't made any airplane reservations. So, I just can't tell you which day the talks will break up except to say that they're not going to go on forever-that I can assure you of because I am not going to go on forever.
QUESTION: Do you still find this six party talk process useful or are you now trying to consider other options?
A/S Hill: I'm still here so obviously we consider it useful but that doesn't mean it's easy. It doesn't mean that you are not going to have some difficult days and I would say we are having those right now. So, we have to see.
Thank you very much. Good to see you all. Take the rest of the evening off, especially you people holding these microphones. Good night.
(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 |
|
|
|
