|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation North Korea Announces Withdrawal from NPT, January 10: Statement and ReactionI. North Korean StatementNorth Korean Government Statement, January 10; statement broadcast by the Korean Central News Agency, http://www.kcna.co.jp. As it has become clear once again that the US persistently seeks to stifle the DPRK at any cost and the IAEA is used as a tool for executing the US hostile policy towards the DPRK, we can no longer remain bound to the NPT, allowing the country's security and the dignity of our nation to be infringed upon. Under the grave situation where our state's supreme interests are most seriously threatened, the DPRK Government adopts the following decisions to protect the sovereignty of the country and the nation and their right to existence and dignity:
The withdrawal from the NPT is a legitimate self-defensive measure taken against the US moves to stifle the DPRK and the unreasonable behaviour of the IAEA following the US. Though we pull out of the NPT, we have no intention to produce nuclear weapons and our nuclear activities at this stage will be confined only to peaceful purposes such as the production of electricity. If the US drops its hostile policy to stifle the DPRK and stops its nuclear threat to it, the DPRK may prove through a separate verification between the DPRK and the US that it does not make any nuclear weapon. The United States and the IAEA will never evade their responsibilities for compelling the DPRK to withdraw from the NPT, by ignoring the DPRK's last efforts to seek a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue through negotiations. Source: N. Korea quits nuclear treaty - text, BBC News Online, January 10, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/asia-pacific/2644613.stm. II. International Reaction1. Spokesperson for UN Secretary-General'Statement attributable to the Spokesman for the [UN] Secretary-General [Kofi Annan] on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's announcement of its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, New York, January 10, 2003'; UN website, http://www.un.org. The Secretary-General regrets the announcement by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea of its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and strongly urges reconsideration of this decision. The NPT is the lynchpin of the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime and with 188 States parties is the most widely subscribed to multilateral treaty in this area. No state party to the NPT has ever withdrawn from the treaty in the 33 years since its entry into force. While noting the denial by the DPRK of any intentions to acquire nuclear weapons, the Secretary-General stresses the importance of adhering to Treaties and their legal obligations in achieving international peace and security in accordance with international law. He takes this opportunity to reiterate that the problems regarding DPRK's nuclear programme must be resolved through peaceful dialogue. 2. IAEA Press Release'IAEA Director General calls on North Korea to reverse its decision on NPT withdrawal', IAEA Press Release, PR 2003/01, January 10. IAEA Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, said today that the decision by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was "a continuation of a policy of defiance and was counterproductive to ongoing efforts to achieve peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula." Dr. El Baradei added that, "the NPT, with its 188 States Parties, is the cornerstone of the international community's efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons. A challenge to the integrity of that Treaty may constitute a threat to international peace and security." "I strongly urge the DPRK to reverse its decision and to seek instead a diplomatic solution," Dr. ElBaradei said. "This is the only way to address the DPRK's security and other concerns." He reminded the DPRK of the international community's readiness to engage the DPRK in a dialogue toward a peaceful settlement once the DPRK had shown signs of readiness to come into compliance with its international non-proliferation obligations, but not under the threat of nuclear blackmail. Dr. ElBaradei noted that under Article 10 of the NPT, a decision to withdraw can only be effected after three months. He expressed the hope that, as a matter of urgency, the international community and the DPRK through dialogue would arrive at an agreed and peaceful solution. 3. US Secretary of State/IAEA Director General Remarks to PressUS Secretary of State Colin L. Powell & IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, remarks to the press, Washington, January 10. Secretary Powell: ... On the subject of DPRK, North Korea in its announcement today that it intends to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States condemns this action on the part of North Korea and also finds it very, very unfortunate. This past Monday [January 6], the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors, 35 nations unanimously agreed to give North Korea a chance to come into compliance with its international obligations and North Korea has thumbed its nose at the international community. This is very regrettable. It's a sad statement on the part of the North Koreans of the respect in which they hold their own people. This makes it more difficult to find a solution. Nevertheless, we will continue to search for a solution. We will continue to be open to the opportunity for talks, but talks that will deal with this problem - a problem created by North Korea, not by the international community, and not by the United States. It is their failure to comply with their obligations and their failure to do what they were supposed to do under not only international obligations, but the Agreed Framework entered into with the United States. And we hope that the North Korean leadership will realize the folly of its actions, will realize that the international community and the United States will not be intimidated and we will continue to work for a peaceful solution, not only on behalf of the American people, but on behalf of the people of the world. The Non-Proliferation Treaty is an important international agreement, and this kind of disrespect for such an agreement cannot go undealt with. And so, I look forward to continuing to work with the Director General and his colleagues as we deal with these very difficult and important issues. ... Director General ElBaradei: ... [W]ith regard to North Korea, I think...the step by North Korea today to announce their withdraw from the NPT is, again, continuation of a policy of defiance. I think they have to understand that it is only through compliance and not through defiance that they will be able to move forward with their needs - security and otherwise. We are, obviously, going to give diplomacy some time to work. I understand that there's a lot of diplomatic demarches in different capitals. Ultimately, however, if it doesn't succeed, the matter will have to go to the Security Council. But I hope we will be able to defuse the situation before we have to go to the Security Council. Withdrawal from the NPT is a very serious issue. This is a cornerstone of the whole nuclear arms control regime, and a country cannot just walk out without ramification because challenging the integrity of the nonproliferation regime is a matter that can affect international peace and security. And we are obviously going to continue to cooperate closely, Secretary Powell and the Agency to make sure that we are resolving these issues, if we can, through peaceful means and we'll do everything possible to move forward. Question: Secretary Powell, have you heard anything from...[New Mexico] Governor [Bill] Richardson [US Ambassador to the UN and Energy Secretary under President Clinton], anything positive you could tell us about? Powell: Yes, I have been in touch with Governor Richardson on a regular basis. I spoke to him last night and I spoke to him twice today so far. Let me just put in perspective how this unfolded. The North Koreans approached Governor Richardson and asked for a meeting because they had some ideas they wanted to put on the table. Governor Richardson contacted us and I returned his calls and we discussed the matter and thought that it would be useful for him to hear whatever ideas the North Koreans had. Governor Richardson, as you all know, has a past relationship with North Korea and has done work with them and they know him and he knows them. So in order to not deprive ourselves of any useful information, we suggested to Governor Richardson it would be okay for him to go ahead, and we made it possible for the North Koreans to see him. And he will be calling at the end of the day when these meetings are over to give me a full report, and then we will take that report into account as we move forward to see whether or not any new elements have been introduced into the equation. But this, I think, is a one-time shot for the Governor. As he has indicated, he is not an emissary or does he intend to be, nor does he intend to be an envoy in this matter. As a brand new governor, he's got a lot of work to do and so I will be in touch with him later this afternoon. Question: Secretary Powell, do you think it's time to refer this situation with North Korea to the U.N. Security Council and if not, what not? And for the Director General, you said you want to give diplomacy a chance. How much more time do you think is reasonable to give the North Koreans before you would want to move this to the UN? Powell: It will ultimately have to go to the Security Council. When and through what process and what one would ask the Security Council to do at that time remains to be determined. ElBaradei: I think what we are talking about is matter of weeks. It's not - it's not an open-ended invitation for cooperation. If we do not see signs of cooperation on the part of DPRK quite soon, then obviously, we'll have to move to Security Council. ... Question: Mr. Secretary, are you prepared to call the situation with North Korea a crisis at this point? Powell: I think it's a very serious situation. Characterize it in any way you wish. I think it's a very serious situation. The one thing I will say is that we're not going to be intimidated. We're not going to be put into a panic situation. We're going to work this deliberately. We're going to continue to consult with our friends and allies. We're going to continue to try to find a diplomatic solution, and as the President said, if there is seriousness on the side of the North Koreans to solve this problem, we are ready and willing to listen. But we will not enter into any kind of talk or dialogue where North Korea has given any impression that they have any choice but to come into compliance with their obligations to the international community. ... Source: Transcript - Powell Says North Korean Disrespect for NPT Must Be Dealt With, US State Department (Washington File), January 10. 4. US State Department BriefingBriefing for Foreign Media by Philip Reeker, Deputy Spokesperson, US Department of State, Department of State Foreign Press Center Briefing, Washington, January 10. Question: Dmitry Kirsanov, Russian News Agency Tass. Philip, I have a rather simple technical question. After what happened today with North Korea, do we plan any specific consultations and meetings with the Russian officials? ... Philip Reeker: I can tell you that Secretary Powell spoke with Foreign Minister Ivanov today which, as you know, they do quite frequently. I believe they did speak about North Korea. I know they have in the past. We've seen statements from Russia, as well as many other countries, expressing grave concerns, indeed condemnation, over North Korean actions. The international community has been very much knitted up. They're making clear that North Korea has put itself in this position and that North Korea has an obligation to come into compliance with their various commitments to the international community. ... Question: Takashima, Asahi Shimbun [in Japan]. ... I understand that in the joint [US-Japan-South Korea] statement of TCOG Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group] this week [January 7]...the United States had a message to its willingness to have a talk with North Korea. And did you get any answers or indications from the New York channel so far? Reeker: No, I'm not aware that we have heard back from North Korea. We would like to hear how they expect to come back into compliance and to dismantle their nuclear weapons program, which is what the entire international community has called on them to do. So we have made quite clear through that statement and our other statements what the position is. We've reminded North Korea what they have given up by moving down this road, how that's affected the North Korean people. You'll recall that President Bush made quite clear that we were prepared to pursue a bold new dialogue. Other countries in the region, Japan for instance, were reaching out to North Korea to have a new approach to help North Korea become more part of the mainstream of the international community. We had concerns and issues we wanted to discuss. We were ready to listen to their concerns as well through that dialogue. But all of that went on hold when we discovered and confronted the North Koreans with the fact that they had started a nuclear weapons program of enriching uranium, all the while - while the international community, the United States, was abiding by the Agreed Framework that had sealed off the nuclear program at Yongbyon. And so what we need to see is a return to compliance, an end to nuclear weapons development, and we've said - as we said in the statement after our meetings with our Japanese and South Korean allies - that we are prepared to talk to North Korea about how they can come into compliance with that. And we had indicated that we had other hopes in relationship as well. Recall that Secretary Powell did speak to his North Korean colleague in July in Brunei last year, and Assistant Secretary Kelly went to Pyongyang and told them what we had been prepared to do, but that the situation, given this weapons program that North Korea decided to pursue, made that impossible. Question: And the second question is could you tell me...about the new idea of setting up a new international body which might replace the current KEDO [Korean Peninsular Energy Development Organization, responsible for implementing the Agreed Framework]... Reeker: That's something I had not been aware of. KEDO has had a particular role, as you know. Certainly, as we've dealt with North Korean issues, we've worked closely through the so called TCOG, the Trilateral Coordination Oversight Group, with Japan and South Korea, but also we've kept in very close touch with Russia and China on North Korea, as well as with the European Union, with the Australians, with the Canadians and others, certainly in this current situation. But in terms of new structures or new organizations, I don't have anything on that. ... Question: Guy Dinmore, Financial Times. Phil, on North Korea, given in October you confronted them with this knowledge of the secret weapons program...and last week the UN inspectors were expelled, can you explain what you think in practical terms is the significance of North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT? What difference does this actually make to the situation there? Reeker: Well, I think it's clearly not a positive development. We've heard that from all around the world. It's a matter of serious concern. It's another provocative step by the North Koreans in their policy of nuclear brinkmanship. It violates international norms and only serves to further isolate North Korea. It's clear by the announcement that they made last night, regarding the Non Proliferation Treaty, that Pyongyang is not listening to the consistent message from its neighbors in the region, and from others in the international community that they need to reverse course and completely abandon the nuclear weapons program, to dismantle visibly, verifiably the nuclear weapons program and come into full compliance with its international commitments. And once again, we would just say that North Korea's relations with the entire international community hang on North Korea taking these actions. So the North Koreans have the opportunity to take action here. The ball is in their court, and, as we've said, we'd like to hear from them, how they intend to do that. Source: Transcript - North Korean NPT Withdrawal Called "Provocative Step", US State Department (Washington File), January 10. 5. White House Press Briefing'Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer, January 10, 2003'; The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. Ari Fleischer: The President began his day early this morning with a phone call, for 15 minutes, with President Jiang Zemin of China, where the two discussed developments on the Korean Peninsula. They both agreed that North Korea's announcement of its withdrawal from the nonproliferation treaty was of concern to the entire international community. The President told President Jiang that he views this as an issue that binds the United States in a common purpose with China and other nations around the world. The President stressed that the United States has no hostile intentions toward North Korea, and sought a peaceful, multilateral solution to the problems created by Pyongyang's actions. President Jiang reiterated China's commitment to a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula. The two presidents agreed to continue to work together to help ensure the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula. ... Question: Does the administration view North Korea's withdrawal from the nonproliferation treaty as a serious escalation of the crisis? Fleischer: Well, given the fact that North Korea had already acknowledged that it was violating the very treaty that it had signed up to, it comes as no surprise, frankly, that they've made this announcement. Nevertheless, it is disappointing. This is an issue that gives serious concern to the international...community and to the United States. Already this morning, North Korea has been condemned by France, by England. They have drawn the statements of very serious concern from Australia, from Japan, from Russia. And North Korea continues to take steps in the wrong direction, steps that only hurt their own cause and the cause of the North Korean people. Question: But why, given this escalation, then, does the administration not think it may be time to change tactics or try something more aggressive? Fleischer: Well, the real news came when North Korea admitted that it was violating the treaty. The news that it will no longer belong to a treaty that it has violated is secondary to the more important fact and news when North Korea informed the world that in violation of all its agreements it made with the world, it was not in compliance with the very treaty that it had signed. Question: Ari, North Korea also sort of indicated that it might be willing to talk about this. Do you see mixed messages coming from North Korea, and do you think there is any possibility of negotiations? Fleischer: I think it's always hard to read North Korea's messages. I think that's been true throughout the history of North Korea. The United States message is clear and it's a message that is echoed around the world: that North Korea needs to comply with its international obligations. And that is something that we have said we will talk to North Korea. That's a message that they need to understand and they need to act upon. Question: The North Koreans seem, nonetheless, determined to sort of stick their fingers in the administration's eye. They're talking to a Democrat [Bill Richardson] very deliberatively. The ambassador today made a number of undiplomatic statements in a public news conference. And, yet, you still maintain you can talk to them? Fleischer: I think it's fair to say that North Korea has decided that it wants to stick its finger in the eye of the world. This is not an action North Korea has taken vis-a-vis the United States, this is an action that North Korea has taken vis-a-vis the world. The world stands united, North Korea stands isolated. And hence the problem for the people of North Korea. The people of North Korea are the ones who suffer the most when the North Korean government acts in a manner that is so contrary to international agreements and international expectations. It's the people of North Korea who pay the price when the government of North Korea takes these actions. They bring upon themselves a path of further isolation. Question: The North Koreans don't seem to be blaming the rest of the world. They seem to focus their anger entirely on the United States. Fleischer: That's why I said, when you see the fact that North Korea woke up this morning to news that their actions have been condemned by virtually the entire world, this is an issue that North Korea has brought upon itself in its dealings with the world. North Korea may want to isolate it as a matter with the United States, but that's far from reality. Question: Speak of the condemnation of North Korea in strong terms, but the word "disappointing" is pretty mild in the language that's come from this podium, and so forth. Is it because North Korea is so strong, that we wouldn't dare take her on, and so you're using the diplomatic route in that case? Fleischer: Actually, Helen, I used several adjectives. I said it was disappointing, it's [a] serious concern, it's brought upon... Question: "Disappointing" is a mild term. ... A slap on the wrist. Fleischer: Only if you ignore the rest of my words. I can repeat them. The administration has said it's a matter of serious concern, and it's brought on the condemnation of the world toward North Korea. Question: ... The UN Ambassador from North Korea said today that any action by the Security Council to impose sanctions would be seen as an act of war. Is that why the...administration has not gone to the Security Council? And does North Korea hold the cards here, essentially? Because of their armed forces on the border of South Korea and their potential small nuclear arsenal, are they forestalling tougher action from the administration? Fleischer: I think it's fair to say that when you look at the history of North Korea and its dealings with multiple nations around the world, their approach is, the worse they act, the more they get. And that's an approach that this administration will not be a party to. And so I think what you do see, in the case of North Korea here, is a nation that has had a pattern of acting out of line with international agreements and then seeking to be rewarded by the rest of the world. And the President's approach to this matter will remain a diplomatic approach, a matter of steady and steely diplomacy. Question: Now, if I could just follow-up. The President has said on several occasions, and he reiterated to President Jiang this morning, that he has no hostile intentions, no intention to invade North Korea. Will he put that in writing? Fleischer: It's not a question of that... It's a question of North Korea coming into compliance with its obligations around the world. It's not a question of North Korea receiving anything in return for its bad behavior. The President has said what he said. It's a statement of American policy, and I think it's a statement that the nation is understanding. Question: Why not just put, "Dear Kim, we won't invade." What's the difference between saying it and writing it? Fleischer: Well, again, put yourself in the position of anybody who is working with a nation that we previously entered into an agreement with. We entered into agreement, that was a quid pro quo. If they did certain things, such as not produce nuclear weapons, the United States would provide them certain things. We provided them those things. We held up our end of the bargain. They walked out on their end of the bargain. The suggestion that when they walked out on their end of the bargain we should do additional things doesn't seem to make any sense. That's just a formula to reward bad behavior and that's not a good diplomatic policy. ... Question: Is China doing enough to exert its influence over North Korea? Fleischer: The President is pleased with his cooperation that he has received from China on this topic. This remains an issue that we work regularly with the Chinese on. The President and President Jiang Zemin had a very good discussion about it this morning. ... I think it's fair to say that we will continue to work with all nations around the world to see what more can be done. And that is exactly the reason that we're in consultations. ... Question: Ari, this morning after a meeting with [IAEA Director General] Mohamed Elbaradei and Senator [Richard] Lugar [the new Chair of the Foreign Relations committee], Mohamed Elbaradei said - and Senator Lugar seemed to concur - that what the US needs to do is not just have talks, but make it clear that there's a light at the end of the tunnel for North Korea, in those talks, that there's a reason that they should come to the table. What do you say to that? Fleischer: There is a light at the end of the tunnel, and that begins with North Korea's immediately dismantling its nuclear weapons programs and coming into compliance with its obligations around the world. The ball is in North Korea's court. And it's important when the ball is in your court not to move backward with it. And so we hope that North Korea will move forward and take the actions to dismantle its weapons programs and come into compliance. ... Question: Ari, is there a limit to the President's tolerance for North Korea's bad behavior? In other words, what does it take to trigger a stronger response from the White House? Fleischer: Again, the response from the world has been strong. But the President has made the decision to pursue this matter in a diplomatic fashion. And one of the essences of good diplomacy is to recognize the fact that good diplomacy occasionally takes time - it takes time to work in concert with our allies, it takes time to develop positions and to convince the North Koreans of the merits of those positions. Obviously, North Korea has set itself on a path, a path that we urge them to reverse. But the President has made the decision that this is a diplomatic matter and that, as I indicated, is a matter the President will pursue in a very steady and steely manner. Question: Ari, Elbaradei has made a couple of points that he largely agrees with the US, he said that North Korea must take the first step and that they cannot interpret anything as rewarding bad behavior. On the other hand, he does say that it would be appropriate for the international community to articulate what the North Koreans could expect from good behavior. Fleischer: Well, let me put it this way. Before the North Koreans announced that they had violated the treaties they belonged to and began the production of nuclear weapons in violation of the agreements they made with the United States and the rest of the world, the United States had been prepared to offer a bold approach to North Korea. North Korea has been and is on a path of continuing to isolate itself from the rest of the world. And when you take a look at the fantastic differences between the life of the people of South Korea and North Korea - who, after all, began at the exact same starting point after the Korean War - look at the success and the progress and the education that's available, the health care that's available, the food that's available to their neighbors in the South that is denied to the people in the North because of the government of the North. And so this is an issue where North Korea has chosen a path that has hurt its own people. And the President very much would like to see a North Korea that is able to put itself on a different path, a path that could result in the world doing more to help North Korea. But the ball is in North Korea's court, and North Korea has to act as a responsible sovereign among the nations of the world. Question: I understand what you're saying. But does the US view a discussion of what the North Koreans could expect from good behavior, what would happen after they come into full compliance? Do you view any such discussion as negotiations, or is that just part of a discussion about what the future might look like? Fleischer: It is very plain that North Korea must comply with international obligations and cease its production of nuclear weapons and dismantle the facilities and honor its obligations. But from the point of view of North Korea, look what they lost, that they may have been on the way to gaining with a nation like Japan. Japan was in the midst of discussions with North Korea about advancements in the relationship between Japan and North Korea that would have been historic in nature, given the histories of Japan and North Korea. And North Korea forfeited [those gains] for itself, as a result. These are not hard decisions for a nation to make if it's a nation that seeks to advance itself, to be welcomed by the international community and to take care of it's own people. So North Korea, I think, has to...come to a reckoning about the path that it is putting itself on, if it seeks a bright future for itself and for its people around the world. Question: Ari, you mentioned North Korea's history of erratic behavior, and the present is a case of it. There was a famous diplomatic incident in 1950 in which the Secretary of State at the time, Dean Atchison [Acheson], gave a speech defining America as what he regarded as America's security perimeter in Asia, did not include South Korea. And most historians now view that as a major blunder that falsely conveyed a message to the North Koreans that they could invade South Korea without - with impunity. And in fact they did, within a few days, I believe, of that speech. Is it possible, given the kind of disconnect that often exists between North Korea and the rest of the world, is there a danger that the North Koreans are misinterpreting the kind of forbearance that the administration has expressed... Fleischer: I don't know how to possibly answer a question about what North Korea may or may not do in the future. I can tell you that the United States will continue, as it has, in concert with the other nations in the region. What you really have here is a case of one nation pursuing a very unilateral path and the United States working shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest of the world. Question: You seem to have taken care - the whole administration seems to have taken care not to have laid down any red lines in this. My question is, is there a danger in doing that, that the North Koreans may misinterpret what's going on? Or are you privately trying to communicate something a little tougher to lay down some... Fleischer: No, I think the message has been made very publicly and very plainly to North Korea, that they need to come into compliance with their obligations. And I don't think that's a hard message for anybody around the world to either accept or to understand. ... Question: On North Korea, did you ever clarify whether the North is allowed to develop any nuclear energy - not nuclear weapons, but energy? Is this situation now elevated to a crisis level? And are the US troops obligated by treaty to stay there? Could they be pulled out? Fleischer: Well, on the question of energy, belonging to the nonproliferation treaty does not deny any nation the ability to generate electricity, including nuclear energy. But you don't have to withdraw from the nonproliferation treaty in order to generate electricity. One-hundred-eighty-eight nations belong to the NPT, all of them generate electricity. So the withdrawal from the treaty has nothing to do with the seeking or the desire to generate electricity. Question: But nuclear energy is all right... Fleischer: The NPT does not prohibit the use of nuclear reactors for energy production. ... Question: And is this now a crisis, this situation? Fleischer: The President continues to view this as a situation that needs to be worked through in a diplomatic fashion. ... Question: You've talked a lot about regime change with regards to Iraq. At what point would the situation with North Korea lead the administration to call for a policy of regime change there? Fleischer: The President has continued to say that he sees this as a matter to be handled through diplomatic channels, and that's how he's handling it. ... Question: Ari, the words out of the White House seem to be much softer as it relates to North Korea. You talk about the ball is in North Korea's court and you're saying it's a matter that can be handled through diplomatic channels. But North Korea right now is warning that there could be a third world war. What is the White House's opinion of that? Could it actually escalate to that point? Fleischer: Well, as I indicated earlier, I think that if you take a look at the history of North Korea's approach to diplomacy, it's to gin-up as much of a possible crisis atmosphere as they can possibly gin-up in the expectation of receiving something in return for spiraling down what really is their rhetoric. And they have abandoned their commitments to very important international agreements that help protect against proliferation concerns as their tactic to do it. And the United States has made the determination, along with the rest of the world, the best response to deal with this is for steady diplomacy. Question: Ari, on another question somewhat on that. If the United States were to go to war with Iraq and possibly North Korea at the same time, could the United States military handle both of those issues? Fleischer: The President has said that this is going to be pursued in a diplomatic way, not a military way vis-a-vis North Korea. So I don't even think it's germane. But Secretary Rumsfeld has already spoken out about that matter and, as you know, the position of the United States government to have the ability to fight two wars at one time, that's a longstanding policy and that's nothing new and I don't say that in regard to any one or other place around the world, that's a generic statement. Question: Ari, should the current diplomatic avenues that are being pursued by the administration be exhausted without any sort of resolution regarding North Korea? Is the UN Security Council an appropriate forum for that matter to be taken up? Fleischer: The United Nations Security Council is, indeed, an appropriate form for many, many issues around the world, that could possibly include North Korea. And so diplomacy is underway, consultations are underway. The President has not ruled out any such diplomatic step. And so events will determine what the next courses of action are. Question: Even in light of the North Korean ambassador's strong words about potential sanctions from that body, the Security Council, that the White House would welcome that? Fleischer: The United States will continue to work in concert with our allies around the world to determine what the appropriate next step should be. ... Question: I haven't heard anybody from the administration lately refer to North Korea's place in the axis of evil. And some diplomats have suggested that this confrontation might have been postponed or lessened if the President hadn't chose to brand them that way. Fleischer: We dismiss that entirely. Given the fact that North Korea committed the most serious act of all, which was the abandonment of its treaty commitments to the United States and its actual actions to develop nuclear weapons in the late 90s, years before President Bush said "axis of evil," it's rather impossible to connect those dots. North Korea took the action before the President was even in office. Question: So you would argue with the notion advanced by some that the North Koreans feel threatened because of the United States' attitude? Fleischer: North Korea did this in the late 90s because North Korea didn't keep its word to the world. I think only North Koreans can explain why they have done this. They took this action in the late 1990s, and North Korea has to explain it. They took it at that time, not at this time. It only got revealed at this time. 6. John Bolton, US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International SecurityThis is not at all unexpected. The North Koreans were not adhering to the treaty when they were still a part of it. Their conduct and their rhetoric don't square. Source: N. Korea Nuclear Crisis - World Reaction, BBC News Online, January 10. 7. Chinese Foreign Ministry StatementWe feel concerned... The treaty is of important significance to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and enhancing international peace and security. We hope to continue to maintain the universality of this treaty and will continue to work to promote a peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue. Source: N. Korea Nuclear Crisis - World Reaction, BBC News Online, January 10. 8. South Korean President Kim Dae-JungThe North's withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty brought the situation on the Korean peninsula from bad to worse by one step. But at the same time, thanks to our efforts, the United States is now moving toward dialogue with North Korea. We have to make the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons. For this purpose, we have to be patient and persistent in achieving a peaceful solution. Source: N. Korea Nuclear Crisis - World Reaction, BBC News Online, January 10. 9. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi'Comment by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi concerning North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, January 10, 2003'; Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.mofa.go.jp. It is deeply regrettable that North Korea has declared its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We are gravely concerned. Japan strongly urges North Korea to withdraw this decision immediately. To this end, we will work closely with the United States and the Republic of Korea, and co-operate with other concerned countries and the IAEA. 10. Japanese Foreign Ministry SpokespersonPress Conference by Hatsuhisa Takashima, Press Secretary, Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, January 10; Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.mofa.go.jp. Hatsuhisa Takashima: [T]he Government of Japan finds it extremely regrettable that North Korea declared today to pull itself out from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Government of Japan expresses great concern, and strongly urges and demands that North Korea swiftly withdraw this declaration of its decision to pull out from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. In light of this new development, Japan will continue to work together closely with the United States of America and the Republic of Korea to deal with the situation. ... Question: On the withdrawal by North Korea from the NPT, does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs plan to convey Japan's view directly to North Korea? If so, how would this be done? Takashima: The Government of Japan is working closely together with the United States and the Republic of Korea to deal with this new development, and we are also consulting with the IAEA. In case of withdrawal from the Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, the IAEA is expected to take the necessary action. ... We have been in constant touch with North Korea through the various channels, including the embassy channel in Beijing. ... Question: With your contacts with North Korea, do you know when the next contact is when you will discuss this issue and directly tell North Korea of Japan's view? Takashima: The North Korean side maintains that the atmosphere is not yet ripe to hold formal normalization talks and also security dialogue between Japan and North Korea. Therefore, there is, regrettably, no official contact or formal dialogue between the two countries. However, we have been maintaining so-called unofficial channels of contact, including through the embassies in Beijing. This is a sort of spontaneous contact, and not a regular one. ... Question: You said that in case of actual withdrawal from the NPT, the IAEA is expected to take necessary actions. Could you elaborate a little bit on that? Takashima: Since the second part of the North Korean declaration relates directly to the Safeguards Agreement between North Korea and the IAEA, the IAEA is the responsible party to tackle with this situation. Question: Japan, the US and Republic of Korea just came out of their Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group [TCOG] meeting last week. The United States has shown a softened stance on North Korea. Do you have any concern that this latest revelation may affect Washington's stance? Takashima: We have been working closely together with the United States and the Republic of Korea. One good example is the press statement issued at the end of the recent TCOG meeting in Washington, D.C., in which, as you said, our side exhibited the willingness to discuss the issue with the North Koreans. That is one of the reasons why we express deep and extreme regret toward the action taken by the North Koreans today. Question: There are many reports suggesting that there is a kind of double standard in dealing with the Republic of Iraq and North Korea. Why is it that we see North Korea expelling IAEA inspectors and announcing clearly that it has have a nuclear weapons program, whereas Iraq is saying that Iraq does not have anything, no program, and that everybody, including CIA officials, is welcome to check its sites. However, we still feel that the United States wants to have war against Iraq, and Japan has not made any clear position as far as attacking Iraq is concerned. On North Korea, however, it adopts diplomacy to solve the problem peacefully and diplomatically. What is your comment on this? Takashima: We have been working very closely with other members of the international community to resolve these two issues diplomatically and peacefully. In the case of Iraq, the United Nations Security Council has adopted Resolution 1441. Under the terms and conditions stemming from that Resolution, the current inspections are going on. So far, nobody has decided to take military action, and therefore, there is no foundation to the alleged double standards. At the same time, in the case of North Korea, we have been urging the Government of North Korea to adhere to the commitment they made to the international community through the NPT as well as the IAEA Safeguards Agreement, the 1994 Agreed Framework, as well as the North-South Join Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We hope that this issue will also be resolved peacefully and diplomatically. 11. Australian Foreign Minister Alexander DownerObviously all of these developments...are a matter of great concern throughout the Asia-Pacific region and indeed beyond. I think Australia can play a useful role in at least helping to put in place the path for a diplomatic solution, but I wouldn't want to overstate what impact the Australian officials will be able to have. Source: N. Korea Nuclear Crisis - World Reaction, BBC News Online, January 10. 12. French Foreign Minister Dominique de VillepinFrance condemns this decision which underlines the need for continuing the bilateral, regional and multilateral efforts... It is a serious decision heavy with consequences, that has to be dealt with by the United Nations Security Council. This major development underscores the necessity and the urgency of international mobilisation. Source: N. Korea Nuclear Crisis - World Reaction, BBC News Online, January 10. 13. Russian Foreign Ministry Statement'Regarding the DPRK's Intention to Withdraw from the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons', Russian Foreign Ministry Statement, Document 36-10-01-2003, January 10. The official announcements of an intention of the DPRK to withdraw from the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons have aroused deep concern in Moscow. It is undoubted that such a move can only exacerbate the already tense situation around the Korean Peninsula and inflict substantial harm upon the universal international legal instruments of ensuring global and regional security. The Russian side expresses the hope that Pyongyang will listen to the unanimous opinion of the world community and of its neighbors and partners and make a choice in favor of the observance of the international obligations assumed in the area of nonproliferation and of an equal and mutually beneficial dialogue with all the concerned parties on the pressing issues of national security. The prerequisites for such a productive dialogue, in our conviction, now exist and it is necessary to make use of them for international peace and stability and in the interests of the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea itself. 14. UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw'Jack Straw deplores action by North Korea', UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (http://www.fco.gov.uk), January 10. I deplore North Korea's stated intention to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Such a step, if carried through, will only increase North Korea's isolation from the international community. I call on the North Korean leadership to change course. The NPT is the cornerstone of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, supported by almost every country in the world. North Korea's action is therefore a matter of deep concern for the entire international community. © 2002 The Acronym Institute. |