|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation '[S]ecurity assurances might be provided within the multilateral context', Joint Statement by the US and the Republic of Korea, October 20Joint Statement Between the United States and the Republic of KoreaSee also below: Background Briefing by Dr Condoleezza Rice. 'U.S., Republic of Korea Outline Areas of Agreement', Washington File, October 20, 2003. On October 20, 2003, President George W. Bush of the United States of America and President Roh Moo-hyun of the Republic of Korea held a summit meeting in Bangkok, Thailand. At the meeting, the two Presidents noted with satisfaction that there has been smooth progress in building a comprehensive and dynamic alliance relationship between the two countries as declared in the Joint Statement adopted on May 14. In addition, the two Presidents had a broad and sincere exchange of views on various issues between the two countries, including North Korea's nuclear issue, Iraq reconstruction, and the issue of upgrading the U.S-ROK alliance. Regarding the U.S. request for the dispatch of additional troops to Iraq, President Roh explained that as a result of conducting a comprehensive review of the overall situation, including the importance of the U.S.-ROK alliance and national interest, the ROK government has decided to dispatch additional troops to Iraq so as to provide assistance for a prompt establishment of peace and reconstruction in Iraq. President Roh stated that the size, type and form of the troops as well as the timing of the dispatch will be decided by taking into account public opinion, the result of the survey teams and the characteristics and capability of the Korean military forces. President Bush expressed respect and gratitude to President Roh for making the principled determination to dispatch troops. President Bush also stated that the ROK's dispatch of troops to Iraq will not only further strengthen the U.S.- ROK alliance and contribute to the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq, but also will serve as an opportunity to increase the ROK's prestige in the international community. President Bush and President Roh reconfirmed the principles agreed upon in their summit meeting in May, that they will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea and that they are committed to a peaceful resolution of the issue. The leaders noted the importance of the Six Party talks for achieving the goal of the complete, verifiable and irreversible elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. The two Presidents shared the view that it is desirable to hold the next round of the talks at an early date and to make concrete progress. President Bush reiterated that the U.S. has no intention of invading North Korea and that the U.S. expects North Korea to end its nuclear weapons ambitions. President Bush explained how security assurances might be provided within the multilateral context, conditioned on North Korea's progress in nuclear dismantlement. President Roh expressed appreciation for President Bush's efforts toward resolving the issue. The two Presidents agreed to study ways and means to seek progress in the next round of the talks. The two Presidents also urged North Korea to respond positively to the other parties' diplomatic efforts and to refrain from any action which would exacerbate the situation. President Bush and President Roh noted that the strong alliance between the ROK and the U.S. and the presence of US Forces Korea have made great contributions to peace and stability on the Korean peninsula as well as in Northeast Asia. The two Presidents agreed to pursue the relocation of USFK bases in careful consideration of the security environment on the Korean peninsula. Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov. Background Briefing with Dr. Condoleezza Rice'Bush Ready to Move Forward with Six-Party Talks on North Korea', Press Briefing by National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice on the President's Bilateral Meetings, Bangkok, Thailand, October 20. DR. RICE: ... The President this morning had a very good breakfast with President Roh of South Korea. They talked about the wide range of issues and the very strong relationship between the United States and South Korea... They had a good discussion also of the North Korean issue, reaffirming their desire and goal of a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula; reaffirming that that means that the North Korean regime must give up its nuclear ambitions and dismantle its programs. And the President, as he had yesterday with President Hu and, prior to that, with Prime Minister Koizumi, discussed his willingness to explore ways that we might move the six-party talks forward, looking for ways within the six-party context to assure the North Koreans of what people have said -- what he himself has said, which is that there is no intention to invade North Korea. But the President is very committed to the six-party talks, believes that it is the forum in which we are most likely to get a satisfactory resolution of the nuclear problem on the Korean Peninsula. And so he reiterated the importance of moving those talks forward... Q: What's the status this morning about the effort to get security guarantees for North Korea? Are you circulating a draft among the parties, among the -- are you at that stage yet? And what sort of verification procedures would you need to have? DR. RICE: Steve, this is just the beginning of consultations. The President wanted to have the consultations with some of the most affected countries. We'll, obviously, also be talking with the Russians. The six-party framework is extremely important because it has all of the near stakeholders at the table. It's true that the entire international community has an interest in a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula, but obviously, for China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the United States, this is a matter of near-term neighborhood. And so the six-party talks are extremely important. We will be consulting. What the President has done here is to simply say to people: The six-party talks are an outstanding framework in which to do this. Let's try to move the talks forward. We understand that the North Koreans have some security concerns that they would like to have addressed. Let's look at how we might address them. Clearly, we -- the President made clear that this wouldn't be a formal treaty. And we have not gotten very far or been very successful with bilateral arrangements with the North Koreans, which is why the President has insisted all along that there be six-party talks. But it does give us now an opportunity to start consulting about precisely how to move this process forward. Q: Have you gotten any feedback yet at this point from North Korea, indirectly or directly, on whether this kind of a process would fly? Nothing else in the past has seemed to have worked. DR. RICE: We've gotten no feedback from North Korea and I don't know what their reaction will be. The fact is, though, that if the North Koreans are, in fact, serious about trying to move this process forward, if they are, in fact, serious about having security concerns, then I would think they would welcome an opportunity to talk to their nearest neighbors about the problem. Q: How soon -- two questions here; they're unrelated. How soon do you think you might be able to get some sort of framework for this multilateral security assurance -- in the next two to three weeks? And also can you speak to this new agency which would handle the international aid for Iraq? DR. RICE: John, the first thing is that we have not come to a conclusion on what the nature of the way forward to address North Korean security concerns is. That's part of the consultation process. But within this six-party framework, we believe that whatever we come up with is likely to be more enduring than what we've been able to have in the past, because you'll have all the stakeholders at the table. And so there hasn't been very much discussions. This is why we want to have consultations with people. This is very much not just a U.S.-North Korean issue, not just a U.S.-North Korean problem, it is a problem for the international community, and it's especially a problem for the states of the six parties. So it only makes sense that before we go and decide we're going to go that direction that we have consultations with the people who are involved in this. And I mean deep consultations, taking their ideas, taking our ideas and seeing what makes sense moving forward... Q: A quick return on the Korea thing. I'm confused by the timing issues that are up in this, because the North Koreans have always said, of course, we must have a security agreement before we can even go on to discuss the nuclear issues. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that what you're talking about is describing a general possibility of a security arrangement, but not actually giving them this agreement until you see serious disarmament. Do I have that right? DR. RICE: David, the key here is that anything having to do with security guarantees obviously also has to do with performance by the North Koreans, and has to do with the North Koreans being willing, able, and verifiably capable of carrying out the obligations that they undertake. I don't want to talk about, at this particular point in time, what timing we may use because, as I said, we want to discuss this with our partners. We are not going to go in, all guns blazing, say take it or leave it, this is it. But one thing should be very clear: this has to be performance-based. What will not work is that the North Koreans somehow believe that they have security guarantees, and then they are prepared and allowed to do the kinds of things that they did with the agreed framework, which was to start to unravel that by going another route to a nuclear weapon. So this is going to take some time, but you have within the six-party context an opportunity to address with the North Koreans their security concerns, but most importantly, to address what the rest of the six-party -- members of the six-party framework are concerned about. And that's a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula, where the North Koreans commit, freeze, and dismantle their nuclear programs. Q: To follow that, your use of the phrase, "this is going to take some time," I take if from what you said in the pre-briefs and what the President declined to answer yesterday in the way of the question, that you folks think you have time and that whether the North Koreans have two weapons, four weapons, six weapons a few months from now doesn't make a substantive difference in what you're doing. The size of the arsenal is not a matter of concern. DR. RICE: David, what makes a difference here is that you have six -- you have five members of this six-party arrangement who are determined to see a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula, determined to see an end to the nuclear programs of the North Koreans, determined that it needs to be verifiable in some way that they have done so, and that's what we are focused on. This is the best framework and the best opportunity that we're going to have to deal with a problem that, frankly, has been brewing for some time. Let's not forget that, seven or eight months ago, if you had said that we were going to be involved in six-party talks about the North Korean nuclear program, that we would have a strong Chinese role in the six-party talks, that you would have unity at the table about the dismantling of the North Korean program, and that we would now be moving toward looking at how we might actually deal with the North Korean security concerns, people have said well, that's pretty ambitious. And so this problem didn't start yesterday; this problem started quite a long time ago, probably in the late '60s, certainly in the early '70s with the North Koreans. It's never really been dealt with effectively. They tried in '94 with the agreed framework. It worked for a while and then shortly -- not too long after, the North Koreans started pursuing another route to a nuclear weapon, so they were obviously not really serious about their commitments under the agreed framework. So all of that in the past, most of which relied on bilateral U.S.-North Korean interaction, didn't solve the problem. We now have an opportunity within the six-party framework to resolve the problem in a durable way. And it's a problem that has been there for a while. It is a problem that has been growing for a while. It may take some time to finally unravel it. But we're in better shape to do it now than at any other time and, I would daresay, much better shape than anybody thought we would be in by this time... Q: Is there -- back to North Korea for just a moment. Is there a link between U.S. troop reduction review in South Korea and North Korea's demands for assurances? What's the link there, or is there -- DR. RICE: First of all, the kind of worldwide assessment of American force strength and the end of the Cold War is something that's just underway. The President hasn't made any decisions. He told President Roh this morning that, of course, that we've made -- he has made no decisions, no one has made any decisions. And so it's not an issue, of course, there's not a link... Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov. © 2003 The Acronym Institute. |