Text Only | Disarmament Diplomacy | Disarmament Documentation | ACRONYM Reports

Disarmament Documentation

'The statement made by the North Koreans... is a positive step forward', US Secretary of State Colin Powell, January 7

'Powell Says North Korean Offer Is "Positive Step Forward"', January 7, 2004.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, could we go back to that nagging question about Korea's nuclear program? You spoke on it yesterday, about it yesterday. But can you foresee reopening the talks in the foreseeable future? And, you know, what's the, what is it going to take to get North Korea to the table?

SECRETARY POWELL: Discussions have never stopped. We are in conversation with the Chinese, the South Koreans, the Japanese, the Russians, and through the Chinese and others, they have, of course, been in touch with North Korea. So even though we haven't had a six-party meeting for some time, I expect that the prospects of having one are improving, and it isn't because we haven't been doing work. We've been hard at work laying out our position and what we believe should be the result of the next six-party meeting. And so a lot of work has been going on.

The statement made by the North Koreans at a -- at not the most senior level, but it was an authoritative level, is a positive step forward. It is not a breakthrough or anything revolutionary, but it is a positive step forward, and the reaction from the region has been a good one. And some of our other colleagues in the six-party framework have expressed appreciation for the North Korean statement, and I hope that this will improve the atmosphere for the talks.

But we really just don't want another set of talks that are the exchange of old positions. We want something that will result in a step forward. And that's what we're hard at work on. So don't think that just because it's not scheduled talk in one of the guesthouses somewhere, there isn't a lot of work going on.

Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov.

Back to the Top of the Page

'State Department Briefing', January 6, 2004.

QUESTION: Yeah, I'm just wondering if you could elaborate, Richard, a little bit on what the Secretary meant by saying that he was encouraged with the North Korean statement and that this was a positive step, and what you guys are hoping it could lead to in the way of a resumption of the talks.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure if I can elaborate, because I do think the Secretary addressed it in some detail. He pointed out that the statement refers to the possibility that they would freeze all their programs. Certainly, the verifiable and irreversible elimination of North Korea's nuclear programs has been part of our goals for this, and that could be a step in that direction. At the same time, it's important for North Korea to agree to go back to talks. It's important that we be able to sit down with North Korea and the others and try to achieve some outcomes that move us in the right direction, for us and for the others involved, including North Korea. So, as the Secretary mentioned, we've been talking to the others involved. Some paper has gone back and forth about possible outcomes for the visit -- for the next round of talks, excuse me. And therefore, that's work that does continue, does continue actively. But we do believe that now, perhaps all the parties want to get back to talks and that would be a positive thing in our mind.

QUESTION: Okay, and when he and you just referred to paper as going back and forth, are you talking about the communiqués that might be issued at the end of a next round, or are you -- is it something else?

MR. BOUCHER: No, it's basically something like that that deals with possible outcomes of meetings that we have going in. We all have some idea of what's going to come out of it. That's something the Chinese have wanted to work on and we've been talking to them and they've been talking to the others as well about that.

QUESTION: Because I thought it was your position earlier that that's -- those are the kinds of things that you wanted to talk about at the meeting, you didn't want to have them all decided before you went in. Am I wrong?

MR. BOUCHER: We -- those are certainly all the things that need to be talked about at the meeting. We've not been opposed to discussing in advance some of those issues and how they might come out. We've been participating in that process, as you know, for a month or more. We've been willing to talk about that. We have not held back on our willingness to go to talks though, as that process continued. And certainly there is plenty to talk about at the talks themselves about how to proceed. That's why you need to have discussions.

QUESTION: He spoke of, the Secretary, that he was hoping that it would be a step forward in this next round (inaudible). The inference is that it will take at least several meetings to achieve your goal. And is he talking about a measure? I mean, I'm trying to imagine something that would be tangible that would be short of a halt to a program with North Korea.

MR. BOUCHER: I think certainly we would welcome an end to North Korea's programs at the earliest possible date --

QUESTION: Sure.

MR. BOUCHER: -- a verifiable and irreversible end. To make it verifiable and irreversible, there obviously will be verification mechanisms, other steps that would need to be worked out. There's the whole interplay, then, with the kinds of security assurances or other statements that we, and others, might want to make as part of that process, so it's not going forth with simple statements, but rather, starting to make clear positions, and then working those out, and that may take more than one meeting. I think the point that we've made before is that we're willing to make this part of a process that would evolve and to engage in a process that would be designed to produce results of the kind that we have envisaged. Teri.

QUESTION: Well, would it be safe to say, then, that when Secretary Powell said he's encouraged, he wasn't referring just to the North Korean statement, it was also to these back -- these negotiations that have been going on through papers? Because the statement itself, I mean, usually you, you express a good deal of skepticism about what they say through KCNA and today you're treating it more credibly.

MR. BOUCHER: I think we've reacted differently to different kinds of statements that they've made. This is one that we think has some significance. The Secretary said it was interesting and positive. I think encouraged is, to some extent, yeah, an overall observation on where he thinks the parties are, that we do think the parties want to get back to talks, that we have seen a continuation of the discussions of getting there. We have certainly been in close touch with the Chinese throughout the last few weeks, and we've been willing to work with the Chinese and hope the North Koreans are, as well, in pulling together another round of six-party talks.

QUESTION: So definitely, then, the Chinese have conveyed to you that even before you heard this statement out of Pyongyang that the North Koreans appear to be willing to come back to talks?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I would not, I would not try to speak on behalf of the Chinese. I would not want to imply that the Chinese -- I don't know how to describe this -- but I don't want to speak on behalf of the Chinese or the North Koreans --

QUESTION: But I'm asking what they've told you.

MR. BOUCHER: -- in that regard. I am not going to tell you what the Chinese have told us. The Chinese -- or the North Koreans can speak on their own. I think the Secretary said that -- I forget exactly how he phrased it -- but it was a belief or an impression that all the parties wanted to get back to talks. I would not go so far as to say we have a commitment at this point.

QUESTION: In that belief or impression (inaudible) with North Korea insisting on preconditions, I'm having trouble squaring the position we're told North Korea takes that the U.S. doesn't find acceptable, and sort of a positive notion that the parties really do want to get back to the table. Can they want to get back to the table and still phrase it in terms that they know are unacceptable? That's a funny way to get back to the table.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I guess it is. One can want to get back to the table, and want to get something before one goes back to the table.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. BOUCHER: At the same time, that's not logically inconsistent.

QUESTION: No.

MR. BOUCHER: But the Chinese are trying to work on this, trying to bring it back together. We have made very clear that we're willing to work with the Chinese on the outcomes. We're willing to work positively to get back to another round of talks that would produce an outcome for us and for the others involved. And we hope the North Koreans are willing to work with the Chinese on that as well.

QUESTION: Richard, yesterday Adam discussed this. There has been an unofficial tour to North Korea comprised of scientists from Los Alamos, a staffer or two from the U.S. Congress and a scholar from Brookings. Are they specifically on their own? Are you hearing back from them? They described it as a Disneyland tour.

MR. BOUCHER: (Laughter.) As you noted, yesterday Adam discussed this, and I think I'd really stick with what he said about this yesterday. Certainly, we're interested in what they see, in their impressions, what they hear. And they're, I'm sure, interested in sharing with us. We've talked to previous unofficial delegations who have gone out to North Korea, and we're always interested in hearing back what people see and hear. But as far as our policy perspective on this, there is nothing new since Mr. Ereli addressed this yesterday.

QUESTION: But did that make it possible, then, for the North Koreans to change their attitudes to have this conference?

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, I doubt things happen quite that way in the real world.

QUESTION: So you don't have any reason to believe their presence now in Pyongyang had anything to do with the release of this statement?

MR. BOUCHER: I have nothing to indicate that.

QUESTION: Okay. And just can I go back to -- and is there anything new to report on the status of the talk -- of a new round of talks, or is it still kind of --

MR. BOUCHER: No, discussions continue. Sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. Oh, I just want to follow up on the Secretary's comment on the -- you know, North Korean side made the same statement almost a month ago, on December 15th Labor Party's newspaper say they're going to suspend the -- all aspect of a nuclear program including the commercial and peaceful base. And why did Mr. Secretary make a statement today like that?

MR. BOUCHER: I haven't done the full comparison of whatever evolution or changes or differences there may or may not have been in their previous statements. Certainly, they have made statements that were somewhat similar. I think it's just the feeling that seeing the statement, seeing the way it's been played and used this time, as well as our general belief that the Chinese are working hard to bring things together, and that we're willing to work with them and others want to as well, that it seems to be interesting and positive, as the Secretary noted. That's not claiming any particular breakthrough. That's just saying it's an interesting and a positive statement. It doesn't make it unique, even. Okay. Tammy.

QUESTION: Any plans for Assistant Secretary Kelly or anyone else to travel, more consultations prior to the talks?

MR. BOUCHER: Not that I know of at this point. I'm sure we'll be keeping in touch with Japanese and South Koreans and other countries involved, but I don't know of any specific travel plans at this moment.

QUESTION: Can you say at this point what the U.S. representation will be at the talks Kofi Annan is holding January 7th -- 19th -- on the UN role in Iraq? We know what he wants, but what is the U.S. apt to do?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, I can't give you a full rundown of that yet. The Secretary General has announced plans to meet with the Iraqi Governing Council officials on January 19th. We're certainly supportive of such a meeting. We have appreciated the Secretary General's efforts to explore ways to further engage the United Nations in Iraq. We remain willing to play a supportive role in efforts aimed at fostering dialogue between the UN and Iraqi officials at achieving greater UN participation on the ground in Iraq as soon as possible. U.S. representatives from Washington and the coalition have been invited to the meeting. We're currently considering appropriate ways to support this meeting and are looking at the issue of our -- Adam, I can't read your -- representation.

Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov.

Back to the Top of the Page

'Powell Affirms Confidence in Decision To Wage Iraq War', January 8, 2004.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask you about yesterday's comment about North Korea. It was very positive on the -- some North Korean authority comment, and the -- you say maybe freezement of all aspects of a nuclear program might be a positive step. But on the other side, North Korea is still maintaining their principle of simultaneity and they are requesting the -- you know, the supply of food aid or economic aid and this.

So maybe freezement without payment, without payment with their commitment, might be a first step as a -- maybe during the next round of talks, sir?

SECRETARY POWELL: We're anxious to have the next round of talks. And hearing from my Asian colleagues, they're getting encouraging signals from the South Koreans and the Chinese and the Japanese that we might be closer to the next round of talks.

But as I've also said a couple of times this week, just because we're not sitting in a guest house somewhere talking at the moment, that doesn't mean discussions and negotiations and trading is not taking on -- going on and taking place.

What is absolutely essential is for us to move forward. We need a clear statement from the North Koreans that they are prepared to bring these programs to a verifiable end. We have made it clear, in response to North Korean concerns and the comments we have received from our colleagues, that security assurances are appropriate, and we believe we have good solid ideas on how to provide those assurances.

That's the opening step, and that's what we're anxious to see in the next round of talks, then we can get into how one goes down that road and what the needs of the North Korean people are and how those needs can be addressed. But what we can't do is say, "You have been doing things that are inconsistent with your obligations, and now we're going to pay you to stop doing it."

We have to begin with, "We're not going to do it, and we're not going to do it in a verifiable manner." And in return for that, we will describe the kind of security assurances we will give. And they also have to make it clear that what they're doing is permanent because we don't want to have this -- see this movie again; and then we have very solid ideas with respect to security assurances, then things start to flow from that, but not before.

Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov.

Back to the Top of the Page