Disarmament Documentation
Back to Disarmament Documentation
The Second Round of Six-Party Talks on the North Korea Nuclear
Crisis, Beijing, February 25-28: Statements and Comment
Note: the six delegations were headed by Wang Yi (Vice
Foreign Minister, China), James Kelly (Assistant Secretary
of State, United States), Kim Kye-gwan (Deputy Foreign
Minister, North Korea - Democratic People's Republic of
Korea), Lee Soo-hyuck (Deputy Foreign Minister, South Korea
- Republic of Korea), Mitoji Yabunaka (Director-General of
Asian and Oceanian Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Japan) and Alexander Losyukov (Deputy Foreign Minister,
Russian Federation).
I. Chairman's Statement for The
Second Round of Six-Party Talks, February 28, 2004
- The Second Round of Six-Party Talks was held in Beijing among
the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and
the United States of America from 25th to 28th of February,
2004.
- The heads of delegations were Mr. Wang Yi, Vice Minister,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC; Mr. Kim Gye Gwan, Vice
Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of DPRK; Ambassador Mitoji
Yabunaka, Director-General for the Asian and Oceanian Affairs,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan; Ambassador Lee Soo-hyuck,
Deputy Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the ROK;
Ambassador A. Losyukov, Vice Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Russia; Mr. James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for
East Asian and Pacific Affairs, United States Department of
State.
- The Parties agreed that the second round of the Six-Party Talks
had launched the discussion on substantive issues, which was
beneficial and positive, and that the attitudes of all parties were
serious in the discussion. Through the talks, while differences
remained, the Parties enhanced their understanding of each other's
positions.
- The Parties expressed their commitment to a nuclear-weapon-free
Korean Peninsula, and to resolving the nuclear issue peacefully
through dialogue in a spirit of mutual respect and consultations on
an equal basis, so as to maintain peace and stability on the Korean
Peninsula and the region at large.
- The Parties expressed their willingness to coexist peacefully.
They agreed to take coordinated steps to address the nuclear issue
and address the related concerns.
- The Parties agreed to continue the process of the talks and
agreed in principle to hold the third round of the Six-Party Talks
in Beijing no later than the end of the second quarter of 2004.
They agreed to set up a working group in preparation for the
plenary. The terms of reference of the working group will be
established through diplomatic channels.
- The delegations of the DPRK, Japan, the ROK, Russia and the USA
have expressed their appreciation to the Chinese side for the
efforts aimed at the successful staging of the two rounds of the
Six-Party Talks.
Source: China Ministry for Foreign Affairs, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn.
Back to the Top of the Page
II. China
'Three Features and Five Advancements,' Wang Yi Commenting on
the Second Round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing, February 28,
2004
Chairman of the Second Round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing, Head
of the Chinese Delegation and Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in
Beijing on February 28, 2004 that the meeting has demonstrated
three features and achieved five advancements, and China would
remain committed to promoting the process of a peaceful settlement
of the nuclear issue with a fair and just stance.
Wang Yi held a press conference for domestic and international
media in Diaoyutai Hotel after the conclusion of the second round
of six-party talks.
Three Features and Five Advancements
Wang Yi said that this meeting had been in-depth, pragmatic and
conducive. The main features are as follows: 1) It launched
discussions on substantive issues, signaling the process of the
talks was going forward. 2) The parties retained a sober and
constructive attitude, symbolizing that the meeting was going
mature. 3) The forms of the meeting were more open and flexible,
indicating the growing confidence of the parties in the
meeting.
Wang Yi summed up the major advancements of the second round of
six-party talks as follows: 1) It successfully boosted the
discussion on substantive issues. 2) It reaffirmed taking
coordinated steps to solve issues. 3) It issued the first statement
since the launch of the peace-talk process. 4) It defined the
timing and place for the third round of talks. 5) It agreed to set
up a working group to mechanize the talks.
He said, these five advancements have laid foundations for
future talks and paved the way for resolving the nuclear issue
peacefully. He also point out that due to the complicatedness of
the nuclear issue, the parties had different or even contradictory
positions. However, it was important to note that differences were
narrowing, consensus was expanding and the hopes for peace were
increasing.
Three Issues on the Agenda
Wang Yi introduced the major subjects of this meeting. The first
subject was the objective of resolving the nuclear issue. The DPRK
reaffirmed its willingness to give up nuclear programs, indicating
that it would dismantle its nuclear weapon development programs so
long as the US abandoned its hostile policies toward the country.
The US further explained its policies toward the DPRK, reiterating
that it had no hostility to the nation and no intention of invading
the country or attempting a regime change in the DPRK and saying
that it hoped to normalize relations with the DPRK after its
concerns were addressed. The parties agreed to settle the issue of
security guarantee in written forms acceptable to all parties. The
parties also discussed the concept of CVID (complete, verifiable
and irreversible dismantling) proposed by the US for the objective
of nuclear dismantlement but no consensus has been achieved on the
definition and range of nuclear dismantlement.
The second was the first-phase steps for the settlement of the
nuclear issue. The DPRK offered to freeze its nuclear activities as
the first step of dismantlement, saying that it also expected other
countries to take corresponding actions. China, the ROK and Russia
pledged to provide energy assistance to the DPRK on certain
conditions. The US and Japan acknowledged and understood the DPRK's
needs for energy. Japan said it would provide large-scale economic
assistance to the DPRK after bilateral relations were normalized.
Issues on the range of nuclear freezing and inspections are
subjects for further discussions.
The third is the continuation of the peace-talk process. The
parties agreed to keep on the peace-talk process, to hold the third
round of six-party talks no later than the end of June and to set
up a working group.
Chairman's Statement Is the Consensus of the
Six-Party Talks and A Working Group will be Set up as Early as
Possible
Wang Yi stressed that the six parties had conducted discussions
in an in-depth manner on the written document during this round of
talks and finally issued it to the public in the form of Chairman's
Statement. The statement collected the consensus of the parties and
was recognized by the parties. It has sent positive and important
messages to the world.
Wang Yi said it was one of the achievements of this meeting that
the parties agreed to set up a working group. As for how the
working group will be established and operated, China will consult
with the other five parties through diplomatic channels in a bid to
set it up as early as possible. Setting up the working group is for
the next round of talks and will not take too long.
Confidence over Future Prospects
Wang Yi said that the bifurcations between the DPRK and the US
did exist, with some of them being sharp and even contradictory.
The lack of trust was the major reason underlying the bifurcations.
With historical factors, Cold-War background and conflicts of
realistic interests all mixed up, the nuclear issue was an
extremely complicated formula.
He emphasized that despite all the difficulties, if the parties
demonstrate firm political will, give full play to their diplomatic
wisdom and make sustained efforts, solutions will surely be
identified to fix the crux and realize a nuclear-free Korean
Peninsula ultimately.
Source: China Ministry for Foreign Affairs, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn.
Back to the Top of the Page
'Press Conference by Liu Jianchao, Member of the Chinese
Delegation to the Second Round of Beijing Six-Party Talks and
Deputy Director-General of the Information Department of Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of China,' February 27, 2004.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Good afternoon.
First of all, I would like to give you an overall picture of the
discussions today. This morning, the second round of the six-party
talks continued its plenary session in Fangfeiyuan, Diaoyutai State
Guest Hotel. The parties held discussions on related issues of the
six-party peace-talk process according to agreed agenda and put
forward their respective suggestions on the establishment of a
working group and timetable of the next round of talks. Chair of
the meeting and head of the Chinese delegation Wang Yi stressed at
the meeting that today's discussions were positive and effective.
He said that differences still remained at present. However, just
because of the existence of differences, difficulties or even
conflicts of interests, the peace-talk process must be continued.
He expressed hopes for the parties to show sincerity and build on
what has been achieved.
Now the floor is open for questions.
Chongqing Morning Post of China: My
first question is, will the talks be concluded tomorrow? My second
question is, according to Xinhua News Agency, President of the
Republic of Korea (ROK) told the press in his country that both the
U.S. and the DPRK supported resolving the issue through
consultation, which is a reflection of the narrowing differences
between the two. What's the progress made in this regard so far?
How far is it for the two sides to bridge their gaps?
A: About the question on duration of the talks, I can
tell you that the talks will continue tomorrow, but I do not have
information on the exact concluding date of the talks. I would like
to point out that I have read reports saying that the progress and
schedule of the talks would depend on the attitudes of China and
the DPRK. These reports are incorrect. The proceeding of the talks
is a result of consultations within the six parties. I know that
you have worked very hard in covering this round of talks, for
which I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks. However, I would
also like to remind you that you should verify what you reports and
sources they come from to avoid misleading the talks and resulting
in misunderstandings. It is also my belief that the press and the
parties share a common wish, which is to see the six-party talks
make progress. We need to enhance coordination in this regard to
create a good environment for the talks from the press. Please
accept my thanks for your hard work once again.
My answer to your second question is, the six-party talks have
been attached great importance to by leaders of the countries
involved and placed high hopes on by the governments as well as
leaders of the countries. The six delegations have made full
preparations for the meeting. As I have told you at previous two
press conferences, currently, consensuses among the parties are
accumulating and differences narrowing. However, differences still
remain, which is a reality. Therefore, we hope that the parties
involved can exercise maximum patience to push the peace-talk
process forward. What has satisfied us so far is that all the
parties have displayed sober and practical attitudes during the
meeting, putting forward many well-thought proposals, some of which
are constructive. Accordingly, we hope that the parties can
continue this flexibility and sincerity, which is a must for
continuation of the peace-talk process.
Kyodo News Agency of Japan: I have two questions. First,
you mentioned just now that the parties raised some suggestions or
proposals. What are those put forward by China and what are the
reactions to them from other parties? Second, the U.S. has
indicated that if other parties are willing to make energy
compensations to the DPRK, it will also consider doing the same. If
the U.S. does not, will China still be willing to do so?
A: My answer to your first question is, the stance of
China is that it hopes the peace-talk mechanism can keep going on
and initial consensus can be reached on the schedule of next round
of talks at the conclusion of this round. Many other delegations
have similar views. As to the question about assistance, China
reiterates that if the parties reach consensus on related issues,
it will join efforts of the other parties to provide energy
assistance to the DPRK.
UPI of the US: Yesterday evening the DPRK
held a press conference after 9 p.m. but did not notify the press
until 10 minutes before the conference began. What are your
comments on this practice and the content of the conference? In
addition, the DRRK criticized the U.S. of taking hard-line
positions, which obstructed the progress of the meeting. What's
your comment? My second question is, will Vice Minister Wang Yi
hold a press conference at the conclusion of the talks? Thirdly,
you mentioned just now that you hope the parties can reach an
initial agreement on the date of opening the third round of talks
as early as possible, would you please disclose some detailed
information on whether the third round of talks will be held within
6 months to come?
A: Let me answer your first question first. As to
notification by the DPRK of the press conference 10 minutes before
it opened, I am not in a position to comment. However, I think that
so long as there are sources of information, it is good news for
friends as you from the press. I have noted that many agencies paid
great attention to this press conference held by the DPRK and
covered it on the spot. I have a suggestion for you. Do more
running and you will be able to get to the destination at highest
speed. As to the stance illustrated by the DPRK, I think the
differences between the parties are narrowing and consensus
accumulating during the talks. However, the differences still
exist. I do not want to criticize any party but to express
appreciation for the down-to-earth, sincere and candid spirits
demonstrated by the parties. As to your question about the
possibility of holding a press conference by Vice Minister Wang Yi
at the conclusion of the talks, my answer is, it is very likely.
However, if such a conference is held, we will not leave you with
only 10 minutes' notice. My answer to your third question about the
date of the opening of next round of talks is, the parties are
still consulting with each other. If a consensus is reached, I will
tell you.
Joong-Ang Libo of the ROK: Have the parties reached
consensus on the establishment of a working group during the talks?
Can you make an introduction to where the largest differences lie
in?
A: As to whether and how to set up a working group, the
parties are still consulting with each other. It is generally held
that to push the six-party talks forward, it is necessary to set up
a working group at present. All the parties are working in that
direction. As for your second question, I am not in a position to
make any disclosure. However, I can frankly tell you that
differences still exist. If you noted the introduction I made at
the first day's press conference, you would know that the parties
have also reached many consensuses. All the parties are fully
prepared for the differences because they know that the Korean
Peninsula nuclear issue is a very complicated one, which cannot be
solved through one or two talks. This perception has been proved
during the talks. Nonetheless, we are pleased to see that
consensuses are accumulating and differences narrowing little by
little.
Interfax of Russia: Is there any
possibility of a joint document being adopted? If yes, how
likely?
A: At present, the parties are still holding intense
discussions on the document. That means, of course, that there is
such a possibility.
China Daily: We noted that your ties had been
changing everyday since the first day. My question for you is,
State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan said yesterday that the meeting had
entered the crucial stage. What's your comment on today's talks
compared with those of yesterday?
A: I have changed my tie to give you a fresh image every
day. Comparing today's talks with those of the previous two days, I
would like to say that each day has its own agenda. The talks are
all important in themselves and substantive in nature. All the
parties are attending the talks in a sincere and pragmatic attitude
every day.
Nihon Keizai Shimbun of Japan: I have a
question about the freezing of nuclear activities. You mentioned
yesterday that the DPRK indicated willingness to stop its nuclear
programmes during the talks. However, the DPRK later said that what
it meant by "nuclear programmes" is nuclear weapon programmes. Can
you clarify on this point?
A: As to this question, the issues in point yesterday
were the first-phase actions and corresponding measures for a
nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. During the discussions, the DPRK put
forward the suggestion for a complete end to nuclear activities,
which has been welcomed and attached great importance to by all the
other parties. As for issues related to the complete end to nuclear
activities and dismantlement of nuclear programmes, the parties
have held discussions, including those on many detailed problems.
The issues would be further addressed by the working group, should
they be established. On the issue of complete end to nuclear
activities, the DPRK has made clear its stance several times since
mid-December. You can check after you are back in office.
New York Times of the US: I have two
questions. First, can you make an introduction to the differences
between peacefully utilizing nuclear technologies and possessing
nuclear weapons? Second, the U.S. has always demanded complete,
verifiable and irreversible dismantlement (CVID) of all nuclear
programmes by the DPRK and made this its bottom line. Is it this
bottom line that has made the parties unable to reach consensus on
a joint statement or document? Should the U.S. show more
flexibility in this regard?
A: My answer to your first question is, China holds that
no nuclear weapons, no matter of what forms, shall emerge from the
Korean Peninsula. We have elaborated this stance very clearly
during the talks. My answer to your second question or the question
about CVID is that the U.S. has displayed its consistent position.
In my opinion, the goal of CVID is to realize a nuclear-free Korean
Peninsula but only CVID is not enough, since the parties involved
have other concerns of their own, including the security concerns
of the DPRK. All these concerns should be addressed. All the six
parties have agreed to take coordinated steps to address the Korean
Peninsula nuclear issue and reasonable concerns of each other. On
detailed questions related thereto, the parties will continue to
consult each other and many issues will not be addressed until
future talks are open.
Knight-Ridder Newspapers of the US: You
mentioned more than once just now that the differences between the
parties are gradually narrowing. My question is, what are the
compromises made by the U.S.and the DPRK? In
particular, with regard to the issue of highly enriched uranium
(HEU), have they made any concessions?
A: This question relates to many detailed issues. Since
the talks are still going on, I am not in a position to disclose
those specifics. The parties have illustrated their respective
stances. It can be said that the parties have got a clearer
understanding of each other's positions through the talks. The
detailed issue that you have mentioned, i.e. HEU, has been touched
upon during the talks.
Sankei Shimbun of Japan:I have a
question about the issuance of a joint document. If the parties are
unable to issue a joint document, can we say that this round of
six-party talks is a failure? Moreover, if we cannot say it's a
failure, what are the criteria for a correct judgement?
A: As to the issue of joint document, my answer is, the
parties are still holding discussions in this regard. I think it is
possible that such a document will be adopted. You should never
lose your hope when it comes down to the Korean Peninsula nuclear
issue. Even if such a document is not adopted this time, I don't
think this round of six-party talks is a failure. Anyway, we have
made one step forward. For example, the second round of the
six-party talks has been successfully launched and entered the
stage of discussing substantive issues, and the parties involved
have explicitly set the objective of denucleaization and reaffirmed
solving the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue peacefully. Moreover,
all the parties have agreed to take coordinated steps to address
the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula and concerns of each
other. Of course, since the talks are still going on, it is still
premature to make a complete conclusion of it.
Thank you.
Source: China Ministry for Foreign Affairs, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn.
Back to the Top of the Page
Press Conference by Liu Jianchao, Member of the Chinese
Delegation to the Second Round of Beijing Six-Party Talks and
Deputy Director-General of the Information Department of Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of China, February 26, 2004
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Good afternoon.
Nice to see you again in this room.
First of all, I would like to give you two pieces of
information. The first piece is about the continued plenary session
of the six-party talks in Beijing this morning, and the second
about State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan's meeting with heads of
delegations to the talks and other foreign diplomatic envoys at
Diaoyutai State Guest Hotel at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon.
Another plenary session of the second round of the six-party
talks was held this morning, which lasted 4 hours, beginning at
9:40 a.m. and concluding at 1:40 p.m. The six parties held
discussions on first-phase actions and corresponding measures for a
nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. They welcomed the suggestion by the
DPRK for a comprehensive end to nuclear activities, which they
believed was an indispensable step for denuclearizing the
peninsula. The parties also expressed understanding for related
demand made by the DPRK. In the spirit of taking concerted and
coordinated steps, the parties held in-depth and pragmatic
discussions in this regard. Chairman of the meeting and head of the
Chinese delegation Wang Yi said that today's discussions were
substantive, with consensus expanding and differences narrowing
despite the fact different views remain.
The parties should remain patient and flexible so as to overcome
difficulties and advance the talks.
That is the overall picture of this morning's plenary session.
Next, I would like to brief you on State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan's
meeting with the delegations to the talks.
State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan met with heads of delegations to
the second round of the six-party talks and other foreign
diplomatic envoys at Building No. 18 of Diaoyutai State Guest Hotel
at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon. Tang Jiaxuan commented that all the
parties attached great importance to and made good preparations for
the talks with the hope that this meeting will yield positive
results. He also expressed his satisfaction with the good start of
the talks. Tang Jiaxuan said that peace and development have become
the themes of today's world, with exchanges and cooperation between
countries ever-increasingly intensifying and various regional
cooperation burgeoning. However, the shadow of the Cold War still
casts over the Korean Peninsula, and the nuclear issue presents
even more severe challenges to peace and development in the region.
Nevertheless, so long as we take the resolution of the nuclear
issue as an opportunity of eliminating differences, expanding
consensus and building trust, we may be able to turn challenges
into opportunities and bring about a win-win situation, thus
creating a more peaceful and secure environment in the region. Tang
Jiaxuan noted that the Chinese government has always held that the
Korean Peninsula should be nuclear-free and reasonable security
concerns of the DPRK be addressed at the same time so as to offer
the DPRK a normal development environment and ultimately achieve
the goal of lasting peace and development in Northeast Asia.
Tang Jiaxuan said that the second round of talks had entered a
crucial stage with the beginning of discussions on such substantive
issues as denuclearization, security guarantee and economic
cooperation. He expressed hopes for the parties to show utmost
flexibility and to actively explore feasible solutions in the
spirit of mutual respect and consultation on an equal footing.
Heads of delegations also made short speeches, commenting that
the talks had been constructive and provided an unprecedented
opportunity for the peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue, and
pledging that the parties would make continued efforts toward the
ultimate goal of settling the nuclear issue. The parties also
offered thanks to China for the good preparations it had made and
expressed appreciation for its active coordination and important
role in the talks as the host.
Now the floor is open for questions.
Phoenix TV: My first question is the ROK said that
China and Russia are in favor of the plan of "energy assistance for
nuclear freezing" it put forward and wish to participate in the
plan. Could you brief us on that? My second question is whether
deputy heads of the delegations are drafting a joint agreement. My
third question is could you tell us the exact schedule of the
talks?
A: As for your first question on energy assistance to the
DPRK, China's position is that if the other parties can reach an
agreement on it, China would like to provide assistance to the DPRK
along with parties involved. As for your second question on the
document of the talks, the working parties are still consulting
with each other. Just as I mentioned yesterday, all the parties
hope to see a good document. China is no exception. As for when the
talks will conclude, it depends on the progress of the meeting. I
heard that some journalists have already booked return tickets for
Saturday. But I am sorry I cannot give you an exact date.
Beijing TV Station: It is reported that today's
highlight is the ROK's suggestion of resolving the Korean Peninsula
nuclear issue through three phases. Did the six parties achieve any
consensus? Thank you.
A: As I said earlier, the parties conducted discussions
in an in-depth and pragmatic manner on the first-phase actions and
supporting measures for the realization of denuclearization on the
Korean Peninsula this morning. The ROK further elaborated its
proposal. We attach great importance to the proposals and stances
of the ROK and other parties.
Reuters: You mentioned a moment ago that the parties
welcomed the DPRK's suggestion for the stop of nuclear activities
in an all-round manner. Is this suggestion the same with the
suggestion of nuclear-freezing it proposed in December last year or
is it a new proposal? How did other parties react to this
suggestion and what does the DPRK wish to get from it in
return?
A: I think the DPRK has started to propose a series of
suggestions on the issue of nuclear freezing or the cessation of
nuclear activities since December last year. The DPRK reaffirmed
its stance and presented its relevant concerns this morning. The
other parties welcomed the suggestion of ceasing nuclear activities
in an all round manner and expressed their understanding of the
DPRK's demands.
China Radio International: I've got two questions.
First, you mentioned just now the parties will "take actions to
realize denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a coordinated
and consistent manner." What is the difference between "consistence
and coordination" and "synchronization and a package of agreements"
which was part of the consensus of the parties involved last time?
Why is there such a change? Second, you said the parties
complimented China for its contribution and service when State
Councilor Tang Jiaxuan met with the delegations of the parties.
Could you tell us specifically what new contributions has China
made in conducting good offices and preparations for the meeting
compared with last time? What improvements are there in conference
service?
A: As for your first question, I said yesterday that the
parties agreed to address the nuclear issue and relevant concerns
through coordinated and consistent measures and believed to take
actions is the best channel to build trust. I think to take
coordinated and consistent measures is a wonderful way to push
forward the peace-talk process given the fact that distrust still
exists among some parties. To put it simply, it is a way of
rhetorics-to-rhetorics and actions-to-actions.
As for your second question on what facilitations China has
provided for the talks, I believe some journalists present here,
especially those cameramen who have seen the meeting room with
their own eyes, can feel the relaxing atmosphere in the Hall of
Fangfeiyuan. We also provided nice coffee and snacks. The delegates
expressed their enjoyment of the lunch. We also hope the delegates
can enjoy their meals so that they will have enough energy for the
talks. We will invite the delegations of the parties to watch
entertaining performances tonight, but I am not sure if they have
the time. Anyway, I wish them good work as well as a pleasant stay
in Beijing.
ABC News: First, could you disclose some details in the
direct engagement between the US and the DPRK? Second, you said
that the parties welcomed the DPRK's suggestion for ceasing nuclear
activities in an all-round manner. Would you please clarify whether
the so-called "ceasing nuclear activities" by the DPRK means that
it will give up nuclear programmes in an all-round manner,
including uranium and related development programs?
A: As for your first question, I heard that the US and
the DPRK would conduct more direct engagements this afternoon. As I
did not attend their meeting, I am not in a position to confirm. As
for your second question on the cessation of nuclear activities, it
is proposed against such a background that the parties presented
and discussed the first-phase actions and supporting measures for
the realization of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula. The
parties welcomed the DPRK's suggestion. The goal of the talks is to
realize a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. The parties involved are
still discussing specific issues of the cessation of nuclear
activities.
Die Welt of Germany: It is said that all
the parties agreed to set up a working group in March to further
discuss relevant details. Could you confirm that?
A: The parties to the talks discussed a number of issues
with some being very technical. I think the questions cannot be
solved through a single meeting. We believe it is necessary to set
up a working group to discuss these issues. We will keep on
discussing the issue of working group in upcoming talks. There is
no conclusion right now.
Beijing Morning Post: The ROK side said that
during the talks in the morning two proposals were mentioned. One
of them is on safeguarding security of the DPRK and the other is on
freezing nuclear facilities of the country. I would like to know
China's attitude toward the proposals. In addition, is there any
conclusion on the ROK's suggestion of setting up the mechanism of
holding a meeting every two months in the future?
A: As for the safeguarding of security, China always
holds that the realization of denuclearization on the Korean
Peninsula is closely related to addressing the appropriate concerns
of the DPRK. Security issues should be considered and resolved in
the process of denulearization of the Peninsula. China attaches
great importance to and welcome the DPRK's suggestion on the
cessation of nuclear activities in an all-round manner just like
other parties. As for how the six-party talks will proceed, the
parties involved need to further consult in future talks.
Dongfang Morning Post of Shanghai: I have
two questions. First, it is reported that the US and the ROK
conducted a joint military exercise along the border between the
ROK and the DPRK. Does this imply anything to the DPRK and will it
affect the six-party talks? Second, will China consider writing
down the abduction issue between Japan and the DPRK into the joint
agreement? Will such rhetoric as "suspense" and "issues of common
concern" be used to avoid sensitive words?
A: As for your first question, since I have been
attending the talks, I have not got a chance yet to read this piece
of news. But I can tell you that we hope the parties can do things
conducive to the easing of tensions, peace and stability on the
Korean Peninsula. As for your second question on the issue of
abduction, I would like to say that every party has presented their
own concerns during the talks.
Bloomsbery L.P. of the US: I've got two
questions. First, according to Xinhua News Agency, the DPRK is
willing to give up its nuclear ambition but demands to reserve the
capability of developing and utilizing nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes. Could you confirm the report? Second, you said China is
willing to provide energy assistance to the DPRK on the condition
that the other parties agree. Could your further elaborate on that
point?
A: As for your first question, I have not read the report
you mentioned yet and the DPRK has never given such a definite
statement in the talks as described by the report you quoted.
However, I noticed that the DPRK explained its stance on relevant
issues, including the one you mentioned, before this round of talks
took place. As for the question of energy assistance, we have only
conducted preliminary discussions on that and China's stance is
that if the parties can reach agreement on relevant issues, China
would like to provide assistance to the DPRK along with other
parties.
Source: China Ministry for Foreign Affairs, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn.
Back to the Top of the Page
Member of the Chinese Delegation to the Second Round of
Six-Party Talks in Beijing and Deputy Director-General of the
Information Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Liu
Jianchao's Press Conference, February 25, 2004
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Good afternoon.
First of all, on behalf of my colleagues and in my own name, I
would like to extend a warm welcome to you for covering the second
round of six-party talks in Beijing. Hopefully our press and media
services have not failed your expectations.
Today saw the first day's session of this round of talks, so I
believe all of you have watched the opening ceremony on television,
which I will not dwell on accordingly.
The opening ceremony was followed by a plenary session. It
lasted four hours with only a ten-minute break and was wrapped up
at 1:30 pm. The plenary session heard speeches by heads of the
delegations and their positions on the objective of resolving the
nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula. The speeches have been sober
and pragmatic. Despite some differences, consensuses have been
reached, which includes the following aspects:
The six parties believed that the nuclear issue should be
resolved through peaceful means and the peace-talk process should
keep on going regardless of any difficulties.
The six parties reaffirmed the objective of denuclearization,
believing that the realization of the objective serves the
fundamental interests of the countries involved and conducive to
peace, stability and prosperity of Northeast Asia.
The six parties agreed to adopt coordinated and consistent
measures to address the nuclear issue and each other's concerns,
believing that taking actions is the best way to establish
trust.
The parties involved also held preliminary discussions on
substantive issues and presented their respective suggestions.
The parties had direct engagements this afternoon. I would also
like to inform you that Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing will
hold a banquet for heads and major members of the delegations in
Diaoyutai State Guest Hotel at 7:00 pm tonight. Tomorrow State
Councilor Tang Jiaxuan will meet with heads of each delegation and
the six-party talks will begin a new round of plenary session.
Now the floor is open for questions.
People's Daily: You mentioned just now that the
delegations put forward some proposals during the talks. It is
alleged that the ROK delegation suggested holding a six-party talks
every 2 months. Please verify whether it is true.
A: I did mention just now that the delegations put
forward some suggestions during the talks. Those include the
suggestion by the ROK delegation that you have talked about just
now. However, as to how the six-party talks shall proceed, it still
calls for further consultations among the parties.
Die Welt of Germany: US Assistant Secretary
of State James Kelly indicated this morning that the DPRK should
give up its both plutonium-based and uranium-based nuclear
development programmes. What are the reactions to that from the
DPRK? Can you give us some information on the bilateral contact
between the US and the DPRK this afternoon?
A: During today's morning session, the parties
illustrated their respective attitudes and held discussions on some
specific issues. Since the talks are still going on at this moment,
I am not in a position to give you information on the specific
issues. As for your second question, the bilateral contact between
the US and the DPRK has begun but I am not informed of the
specifics.
Beijing TV Station: Is the atmosphere of this
round of talks better than that of the first round?
A: It's hard to make a simple comparison. The first round
represented a good start of the process of settling the nuclear
issue peacefully. During the 6 months in the wake of the first
round of talks, the parties have kept close contact and
consultations with each other and have got a clearer and deeper
understanding of each other's stances and problems. Now that the
conditions for substantive discussions are ripe and other bases
have been laid down, this round of talks begin to touch upon
substantive issues. Therefore, the difference, in my view, between
the first and the second rounds of talks lies in the beginning of
talks on substantive issues. For example, this morning, the parties
mainly held discussions around the objectives for the settlement of
the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue. They have been earnest,
pragmatic, candid and sober in their speeches and remarks.
Kyodo News of Japan: What are the opinions
and suggestions put forward by the Chinese delegation during the
talks this morning?
A: Head of the Chinese delegation Wang Yi expounded
China's stance during the talks. He said that China is committed to
maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula as well as
in the region. Based on this principled stance, China has always
supported the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and does not
agree to the emergence of nuclear weapons on the peninsula. He also
stressed that China deems the peaceful resolution of the nuclear
issue in the fundamental interests of all the parties and does not
agree to use sanctions, blockades or pressures. China is even more
strongly opposed to resorting to force or threat of force. He also
noted that when looking for solutions to the problems, equal
consideration should be given to denuclearizing the Korean
Peninsula and addressing the security concerns of the DPRK.
The Straits Times of Singapore: According
to sources of the ROK, the DPRK reiterated its consistent stance
when speaking of the issue related to enriched uranium. Can you
give us an introduction to remarks made by the DPRK? In addition,
you have mentioned just now that the six-party talks will continue
despite the problems and difficulties. Does that mean that the
process of six-party talks will become a mechanism?
A: As to what the DPRK has said during the talks, please
raise the question to the country in point. What I can verify is
that the issue of enriched uranium has been touched upon. As for
the second question, all the delegations agreed that to resolve the
nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula through dialogue is the best
possible way. All the delegations hope that mechanisms like the
six-party talks can keep going on. Head of delegation of the US
James Kelly also indicated that the six-party talks are the best
reliable channel for the settlement of the Korean Peninsula nuclear
issue.
Nihon Keizai Shimbun of Japan: Has Japan
engaged with the DPRK? If yes, can you give an introduction in this
regard?
A: To my knowledge, members of the delegation of Japan
will also hold a briefing at 10 p.m. this evening. You'd better
leave this question for them given the fact that I am not informed
whether they have had talks.
CCTV: I have two questions. At today's opening ceremony,
in addition to offering thanks to China for its efforts which have
made the second round of talks a reality, heads of delegations also
expressed willingness to cooperate. During the ensuing closed-door
discussions, have the parties, particularly the US and the DPRK,
shown more flexibility compared with the first round of talks?
Moreover, you have mentioned just now that the parties held
discussions on some substantive issues and made some progress. Can
you give us a detailed introduction?
A: Before the talks started, including at the opening ceremony,
all the parties, including the DPRK and the US, expressed
willingness to show flexibility during the talks, indicating that
concerted efforts would made it possible for the talks, which had
entered the stage of discussions of substantial issues, to make
concrete progress. I have made an introduction to the initial
consensus reached by the parties at the meeting this morning and
have nothing to add.
Interfax of Russia: Which delegations did
the Russian delegation meet with this afternoon? What are the
results of the meetings?
A: Please ask for related information from the Russian
side.
Jinghua Time: Given the progress of today's talks, how
likely will a joint statement come out of the talks?
A: The talks have touched upon the possible joint
document. During the talks within days to come, the parties will
hold further discussions on some specific issues. As far as China
is concerned, we want a good document.
BBC: You have just now mentioned that China hopes the
Korean Peninsula will be nuclear-free. Do you think that the issue
of enriched uranium must be discussed to achieve that goal? Do you
think that the talks will be meaningless if this issue is not
mentioned?
A: Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is a very broad
concept. It means that no nuclear weapons shall emerge from the
Korean Peninsula. The parties have been open to specific issues
related to the denuclearization. The parties are open to discuss
any issue that can be discussed, but hold that the talks should not
be confined to a single question, given the number of issues to
discuss. The talks have been important. The crux of the problem is
how to make denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula an ultimate
reality while addressing reasonable concerns of the parties
accordingly.
TV Asahi Japan: Have today's talks touched
upon the abduction issue between Japan and the DPRK? If yes, what
are the reactions from the DPRK?
A: Some delegations mentioned this issue.
Jiefang Daily: You said just now that China hopes the
Korean Peninsula will be nuclear-free while at the same time
reasonable security concerns of some countries should also be
addressed. What do you think the crux of the problem lies in?
A: Denuclearization and reasonable security concerns of
the DPRK are correlated. The talks should give equal consideration
to them in resolving the problems. Of course, these problems are
quite complicated, which call for in-depth discussions by the
parties on how to resolve them and what steps should be taken.
China Radio International: Prior to the talks,
Vice Minister Wang Yi and members of the DPRK and the ROK
delegations all mentioned the issue of the "first-phase actions and
measures". Can you tell us the specific content and phaseal
objectives meant by the "first-phase actions and measures"?
A: One of the hallmarks of this round of talks is that
the parties should first set the objective of the denuclearization
of the Korean Peninsula and discuss how to take the first steps.
During the talks wthin days to come, the parties will continue to
discuss these issues. Hopefully, I can give you more information at
that time.
The Christian Science Monitor: I have two questions.
First, during the talks today, have the parties suggested
establishing a working group. If yes, what are the respective
responsibilities of its members? Second, are the parties open to
the duration of the talks? When will the talks be concluded?
A: As to the first question on working group, some
parties have raised this suggestion. Other parties also believe
that establishing a working group is necessary for the continuation
of the peace-talk process. Issues in this regard will be further
discussed in ensuing talks. As to the duration of the talks, the
date of conclusion has not been set yet, which will depend on the
progress of the talks.
Dongfang Morning Post: Are the "first-phase actions and
measures" you mentioned just now based on the first-phase steps
proposed in the three-phase blue print drawn by the ROK? Does China
agree to it? What are the reactions from other parties?
A: We attach great importance to related suggestions made
by the ROK. As I have mentioned, as the talks are still going on,
the issues will be further discussed. I hope that with the progress
of the talks, I can give you more information in this regard.
Wall Street Journal: The ROK indicated that if the DPRK
agrees to freeze its nuclear program, the ROK is willing to make
appropriate compensations for it while the US said it would not do
so. I would like to know China's stance on this issue. If
compensations are to be made, in what forms?
A: First, I would like to clarify that I have not heard
the remarks by the US that you mentioned when I was at the meeting.
I have mentioned just now that the six parties are all willing to
take coordinated steps to resolve the nuclear issue and address
related concerns at the same time. The issue of assistance has been
touched upon during the talks.
That concludes today's press conference. Thank you.
Source: China Ministry for Foreign Affairs, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn.
Back to the Top of the Page
Opening Remarks by H.E. Wang Yi, Vice Minister of Foreign
Affairs of the People's Republic of China at Second Round of
Beijing Six-Party Talks, February 25, 2004
Distinguished heads of delegations,
Dear colleagues,
I wish to hereby declare the opening of the second round of the
Six-Party Talks. As the host, we warmly welcome all the delegations
to Beijing again.
Half a year ago, it was also in this hall that we successfully
launched the process of the Six-Party Talks, charting the course
for a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue. Since then, the
parties have had uninterrupted dialogue and consultations between
themselves, made a lot of in-depth preparations for a new round,
and through this process, enhanced the understanding of each
other's positions. Now the parties are all ready to discuss
substantive issues and expect to produce concrete results in the
second round. We agree that the concerns of all the parties need to
be addressed through coordinated steps, and all hope to continue
the peace process initiated by the Six-Party Talks. These form an
important basis for our talks today.
Distinguished heads of delegations,
Dear colleagues,
The second round is of great significance as it launches
discussion on substantive issues, marking another new step forward
in the peace process. At this round, the parties will discuss how
to identify the specific objectives in resolving the nuclear issue,
explore measures to be taken in the first phase to resolve the
nuclear issue and study ways to continue the process of the talks.
As the talks go ahead, we will encounter more difficulties and
challenges. But this is exactly where we must fulfill our
historical duty and where the international community has placed
high hopes on us. We, the six parties, gather here, reflecting the
strong political aspiration for peace of the six governments and
peoples. We come to the talks to expand our common ground rather
than to highlight our differences. We come here to solve rather
than to worsen problems. The Chinese side believes that the
parties, all aware of the responsibilities on their shoulders to
seek peace, will adopt a constructive stance, act in a cooperative
and accommodating spirit, respect each other, display flexibility
and narrow the gap in their positions. China, being a major
neighboring country to the Korean Peninsula, will be firmly
supportive of the goal of securing a nuclear weapon free Peninsula,
consistently advance the process of seeking a peaceful solution to
the nuclear issue, and staunchly safeguard peace and stability on
the Peninsula.
As the host, the Chinese side is willing to do its utmost to
ensure the smooth conduct of the talks. I look forward to
productive cooperation with my colleagues from other countries and
I hope that the other parties will continue to support the Chinese
efforts.
Thank you all.
Source: China Ministry for Foreign Affairs, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn.
Back to the Top of the Page
Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo is interviewed on the Korean
Peninsula nuclear issue, February 4, 2004
On February 4th, Dai Bingguo, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs,
was interviewed by the Chinese press on the upcoming second round
of the six-party talks.
Q: Since the date of the talks has been set, great attention has
been paid from home and abroad to its preparations. Can you give a
brief introduction to the preparations being made?
A: The first round of the six-party talks held last August was a
significant step towards the peaceful resolution of the Korean
Peninsula nuclear issue and thus was well received by the
international community. Over the past several months, all parties
have stuck to the track of settling the issue peacefully through
dialogue and made relentless efforts for the early kick-off of the
second round talks. As a result, great progress has been made in
its preparations. All the parties have agreed to start the second
round talks on February 25th.
The consultations that China has made with other parties have
shown:
First, all the parties attach great importance to the second
round talks and are willing to make due efforts for its
success.
Secondly, all the parties are open to topics of discussion
during the talks, including the denuclearization of the peninsula
and how to address the security concerns of related countries.
Thirdly, the parties involved have started to seriously consider
possible issues that would be discussed in the next round of talks
and have put up their proposals.
Fourthly, all the parties have realized the complexity of the
Peninsula nuclear issue, whose resolution requires prolonged
efforts and continuation and enhancement of the peace talks. As the
date of the second round talks has been set, China sincerely hopes
and believes that all parties involved will continue to make
strenuous efforts in a responsible manner to create a more
favorable environment so that the talks can be convened smoothfully
as scheduled.
Q: What efforts have China and other parties made in advancing
the six-party talks?
A: As the host of the six-party talks, after the conclusion of
the first round talks, China has been committed to promoting the
talks through good offices to initiate the second round talks so as
to maintain the peace-talk process. China has held many
consultations with North Korea, the U.S. and other parties at
different levels, which served the interests of all parties. It has
also made considerable preparations for the talks. Other parties
are also in frequent contact with each other to coordinate their
positions. Therefore it can be said that all parties have made
their contributions to the re-opening of the six party talks. In
addition, the overwhelming majority of the international community
is also pinning hopes on the continuation of the peace talks and
the EU, ASEAN and some other countries also made their due efforts
in this regard.
Q: What expectations does China have on the second round
talks?
A: To put it simply, China would like to see the successful
convening and fruitful results of the talks and hopes that the
talks will be continued in the future, which I am sure are also
hoped by the other five parties and even the international
community. To put it more specifically, in the first place, we
would like to see all the parties involved show their sincerity in
solving the problems. Second, we hope the parties can calm down and
discuss related issues in a down-to-earth and constructive manner
by giving consideration to concerns of other parties while
asserting their own opinions. Thirdly, it is our sincere hope that
this round of talks can see new consensuses reached and new
arrangements made through in-depth discussions.
Q: Will the parties involved issue a joint document after the
talks are concluded?
A: It can be said that all the parties hope to record the
consensus that comes out of the talks through a joint document. We
have discussed the issue and basically reached a consensus. What
the document will be depends on the progress of the talks as well
as the results of the consultations. In terms of China's wish, we
want a good joint document.
Q: What stance will China continue to uphold on the nuclear
issue of the peninsula? What are the prospects foreseen by China
for the peace-talk process and the peaceful resolution of the
issue?
A: China has always upheld the principles of denuclearizing the
peninsula, maintaining its peace and stability, resolving related
issues peacefully through dialogue and giving consideration to
concerns of all the parties involved. China will continue to adhere
to this stance.
Peace talks are the fundamental way underlying the solution to
the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue and the best choice for the
parties, which will bring largest benefits to all the parties and
to peace, stability and development of the region as well as Asia
and the whole world.
Presently the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue has been basically
brought on the track of peaceful resolution through dialogue. So
long as the parties involved engage in consultations in a
constructive and equal manner with goodwill and patience, they are
surely able to gradually build trust, narrow differences and expand
consensus, thus blazing a trail that will lead to the ultimate
solution to the issue.
Of course, due to the complicatedness of the issue, it is
unrealistic for us to expect a solution through one or two rounds
of talks. We hope that the parties involved and the international
community can have a reasonable and realistic expectation about the
peace-talk process and that all parties can stick to the track of
peace talks with patience when faced with problems whatsoever. We
believe that a peaceful resolution through dialogue is in no way
beyond reach with the continuation of the peace talks and the
unremitting efforts made by the parties involved.
Source: China Ministry for Foreign Affairs, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn.
Back to the Top of the Page
III. United States
Opening Remarks to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
James Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs, March 2
'Korean Talks Made Progress on Several Fronts, Kelly Says',
March 2, 2004.
Six-Party Talks
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to review our
efforts to deal with the threat that North Korea's nuclear programs
pose to regional peace and security and to the global
non-proliferation regime. Having just returned from the Six-Party
Talks in Beijing, I am grateful to have the chance to discuss with
you our work, together with like-minded countries at the talks,
toward a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
The multilateral process is off to a very good start. The false
notion that North Korean nuclear weapons are the unique concern of
the United States is all but gone. Our goal -- complete,
verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of North Korean nuclear
programs -- has been dubbed by the South Koreans "CVID," and that
acronym and the important goal it represents has been accepted by
all but the North Koreans. And with each of the countries having
large and direct interest in the issue, the process is unusually
well focused.
The first round of Six-Party Talks, in August 2003, provided the
opportunity for governments directly concerned with the Korean
Peninsula, and the nuclear issue in particular, to state their
positions authoritatively before all of the other parties. This
created a solid baseline from which we are working together to
bring about a diplomatic solution to the problem.
We began the second round last Wednesday, February 25, with hope
for concrete progress that would lay the basis to continue moving
forward. I am pleased to report that the talks are working to our
benefit and are moving a serious process forward. The parties
agreed to regularize the Six-Party Talks, to convene a third round
of talks before June, and to establish a working group to continue
our efforts in the interim.
This is a good foundation on which we can build in future
rounds. Key, substantive differences do remain that will need to be
addressed in further rounds of discussions. However, we worked
closely with our partners in the talks and were pleased with the
high degree of cooperation among us. Most importantly, we kept the
talks focused on our objective: the complete, verifiable, and
irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear programs, by
which we mean both plutonium and uranium enrichment-based programs.
It was clear by the conclusion of the talks that this is now very
much on the table.
The onus is on the DPRK to demonstrate its commitment to
abandoning its nuclear programs by being forthcoming about the
entirety of its efforts, including uranium enrichment. The other
five parties are all in full agreement on this fundamental idea.
North Korea heard what it needs to do in sessions with all parties
represented, and it heard it from us in direct encounters on the
margins of the formal sessions. By the way, after these encounters,
I was quick to brief the other parties. Transparency is an
important part of the Six-Party Talks, and essential to its core
premises.
These accomplishments are evidence of a very different,
promising atmosphere at this round. All parties came prepared to be
blunt about their positions, but also ready and willing to take on
board the concerns of the other parties. The North Koreans came to
the table denying a uranium enrichment program and complaining
about the inflexibility of the U.S. position, but they have gone
along with the institutionalization of the process.
The achievements from the talks are in no small part due to the
extensive efforts of the Chinese. They have worked as
intermediaries to bring about and host this second round, and we
are extremely grateful for the hard work they have been doing. More
importantly, China has been active as a participant and makes clear
it will not accept nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. The
Republic of Korea has also made a valuable commitment. It would
offer fuel relief to the North if there were a halt or "freeze" of
the nuclear programs. But South Korea has made clear that any such
freeze is but a temporary measure toward the larger goal, and will
have to be complete and verifiable.
We will continue working side by side with the Chinese, the
Russians, and our Japanese and South Korean allies to reach the
result we seek. We have already begun to discuss next steps, and
will be actively consulting with China, the Republic of Korea,
Japan, and Russia in preparation for the next round and the
inter-sessional working group.
The process of transforming the situation on the Korean
Peninsula in the interest of all these parties must begin with a
fundamental decision by the DPRK. The DPRK needs to make a
strategic choice for transformed relations with the United States
and the world -- as other countries have done, including quite
recently -- to abandon all of its nuclear programs. We also made
clear that there are other issues that, as the nuclear issue begins
to unfold, can be discussed with the U.S. Missiles, conventional
forces, and serious human rights concerns could be discussed, and
progress could lead to full normalization.
There is also something else important that is beginning with
the Six-Party Talks. As the Committee knows, the numerous and
intensive security dialogues of Europe are not matched in East
Asia, where the only comparable institution is the annual and
slow-growing ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). Northeast Asia has had no
such event. But the chemistry of articulating interests in a direct
but respectful way - on an equal footing - is developing at the
Six-Party Talks in a way that I anticipate will someday pass beyond
the DPRK nuclear issue.
In his February 11 remarks at the National Defense University,
President Bush called on other governments engaged in covert
nuclear arms programs to follow the affirmative example of Libya.
As he put it, "Abandoning the pursuit of illegal weapons can lead
to better relations with the United States, and other free nations.
Continuing to seek those weapons will not bring security or
international prestige, but only political isolation, economic
hardship and other unwelcome consequences," the President
declared.
The Libyan case demonstrates, as President Bush has said, that
"leaders who abandon the pursuit of (WMD and their delivery means)
will find an open path to better relations with the United States
and other free nations.... When leaders make the wise and
responsible choice...., they serve the interest of their own people
and they add to the security of all nations." Indeed, last week the
U.S. responded to Libya's concrete steps to repudiate WMD by easing
certain bilateral restrictions to encourage Libya to continue on
its current path.
We discussed Libya's example with our North Korean counterparts,
and we hope they understand its significance. Once North Korea's
nuclear issue is resolved, discussions would be possible on a wide
range of issues that could lead to an improvement in relations.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to meet with
the Committee today. We remain convinced that our multilateral
diplomatic approach is correct and will bear fruit, though we know
that more work is ahead. The President is committed to the
Six-Party Talks. We are offering North Korea a chance to choose a
path toward international responsibility. We hope that we and our
partners in the Six-Party Talks can bring North Korea to understand
it is in its own interest to take the opportunity. We will continue
to work closely with the Committee as we proceed.
I'll be happy to take any questions that you have.
Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov.
Back to the Top of the Page
Six-Party Talks on North Korean Nuclear Program, US Press
Statement, February 28
'U.S. Welcomes Results of Six-Party Talks on N. Korean
Nuclear Program,' February 28, 2004.
Press Statement
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC
February 28, 2004
Six-Party Talks on North Korean Nuclear Program
The United States welcomes the results of the second round of
Six-Party talks, which were held in Beijing Feb. 25-28. At this
round, the parties had very serious discussions on the
comprehensive denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, including
the need for the complete irreversible and verifiable dismantlement
of the North Korean nuclear programs, both plutonium and
uranium-enrichment based.
While key differences remain that will need to be addressed in
further rounds of discussions, this round of talks made progress on
a regularized process for the peaceful and diplomatic resolution of
this issue. The parties agreed to hold another round of talks by
the end of the second quarter of this year and to establish a
working group to address, and attempt to resolve, detailed issues
in between plenary sessions.
We worked closely with our partners in the talks and were
pleased with the high degree of cooperation among us. In
particular, we would like to thank the Chinese Government for not
only participating fully in the talks, but also for its exemplary
diplomatic efforts in organizing and hosting the talks.
We hope that North Korea will work with the five other parties
to achieve a satisfactory resolution to the problems created by its
pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov.
Back to the Top of the Page
U.S. Introductory Remarks by James Kelly,
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs,
February 25
'Six-Party Talks Promote Korean Peace, Kelly Says,' February
25, 2004.
DAY ONE OF THE SECOND ROUND OF SIX-PARTY
TALKS
February 25, 2004
The United States is pleased to participate in the second round
of six-party talks in Beijing.
I would like to express my Government's appreciation to the
Government of the People's Republic of China for again hosting
these talks, and to vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Ambassadors
Fu Ying and Ning Fukui and other Chinese officials for their
personal efforts.
The United States is convinced that this multilateral forum
provides the surest diplomatic means of promoting peace and
stability on the Korean Peninsula by ensuring its nuclear
weapons-free status.
It is not only our six governments that are deeply interested in
this issue. The peace, stability, and prosperity of Northeast Asia,
which is a major world population, cultural, economic and trading
nexus, are of great importance to the international community as a
whole. Of no less importance is the need to prevent the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in order to protect
the international community.
The United States seeks the complete, verifiable, and
irreversible dismantlement of all of the DPRK's nuclear programs,
both plutonium- and uranium-based weapons. In that context, as
President Bush stated last fall, the United States is prepared to
join with other parties in providing security assurance to the
DPRK. President Bush has also made clear that United States has no
intention of invading or attacking the DPRK. This remains the
policy of the United States.
Resolution of the nuclear issue will facilitate resolution of
important bilateral issues among the parties and thus open up the
prospect of fully normalized relations among all of the six
parties. That, in turn, will help to ensure not only the peace but
also the prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia as a
whole.
The first round of six-party talks provided the opportunity for
governments directly concerned with the Korean Peninsula, and the
nuclear issue in particular, to state their positions
authoritatively before all of the other parties. This created a
solid baseline from which we can work together to fashion a
diplomatic solution to the problem.
We look forward to positive and productive discussion in this
round. We hope that, together, we can achieve concrete progress and
lay the basis for further progress in the weeks and months to
come.
Again, Mr. Vice Minister, allow me to express the United States'
appreciation for China's hosting of these important talks.
Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov.
Back to the Top of the Page
'Ensuring a Korean Peninsula Free of Nuclear Weapons,' February
13
'Kelly Hopeful North Korea Will Abandon Nuclear Weapons,'
February 13, 2004.
James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs
Remarks to The Research Conference
"North Korea: Towards a New International Engagement
Framework"
Washington, DC
February 13, 2004
(As Prepared for Delivery)
Introduction
It is an honor and a pleasure to address the distinguished
participants in the research conference on North Korea: Towards a
New International Framework. I thank the Korea Institute for
International Economic Policy and the Korea Economic Institute for
organizing it, and the American Enterprise Institute, the Chosun
Ilbo, the Ford Foundation, and the Kookmin Bank for their support
of the conference.
With a resumption of Six-Party Talks on ending North Korea's
nuclear threat less than two weeks away, this conference is very
timely. The United States, and the international community as a
whole, can benefit from the wisdom of the scholars, analysts, and
policymakers here today from the United States, the Republic of
Korea, Japan, China, and Russia on the great and complicated
challenge that North Korea poses to regional stability and the
international nonproliferation regime.
For six decades, the threat of war on the Korean Peninsula has
been one of the chief concerns of American foreign and security
policy. While the Republic of Korea has, in recent decades,
developed into a leading member of the international community, the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea took a historic wrong turn
from the very start of its existence. The result has been
self-induced isolation resulting in insecurity for the regime and
enormous suffering for the people of North Korea. In addition, the
regime has become a source of global concern by its widely spread
proliferation and illicit activities.
The net result is that the DPRK has fallen further and further
behind the dynamic East Asian economy and the world. North Korea's
best hope is to embrace the opportunity presented by the Six-Party
Talks and chart a new course. We and the other parties realize that
moving away from isolation and estrangement toward openness and
engagement will be a major undertaking and we are willing to help.
Everyone knows that establishing the grounds for normalcy and
peaceful co-existence will be difficult. However, we have no choice
but to make every effort to try and that's why President Bush at
the APEC meeting last October made clear our willingness to
document multilateral assurances of security.
But, this process of transformation must begin with a
fundamental decision inside the DPRK. North Korea needs to make a
strategic choice and make it clear to the world, as Libya has done,
that it will abandon its nuclear weapons and programs in a
complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. Two days ago,
President Bush -- in a most important speech -- called on other
regimes to follow the example of Libya. As he put it, abandoning
the pursuit of illegal weapons can lead to better relations with
the United States, and other free nations. Continuing to seek those
weapons will not bring security or international prestige, but only
political isolation, economic hardship and other unwelcome
consequences.
Moreover, as negotiator in our multilateral talks, I would offer
that we also need a strong commitment to timely action. Given the
history of broken and unsuccessful agreements with the DPRK, we
cannot afford to leave the hard work for the end of the
implementation process.
North Korea's Nuclear Programs
North Korea nuclear ambitions go back at least to the 1970s and
are deeply grounded in its policy of national independence. Several
decades ago, a North Korean leadership fearful of its own people
and of the challenge represented by the economically developing,
democratized Korean republic to its south, set out on a path to
acquire nuclear weapons. Over time, various justifications have
been offered. But, whatever the regime's rationale, the United
States believes that a decade or so ago North Korea probably
managed to develop at least a couple nuclear weapons.
As we now see it, maintaining a nuclear arsenal apparently has
become a core, not peripheral, element of North Korea's national
defense strategy. Thus, the challenge of getting rid of nuclear
weapons and capabilities needs to be seen in the context of North
Korea's willingness to dramatically alter its national strategy.
With the changed environment of this new century, among the world's
vibrant economies, there is such an opportunity for North Korea to
seize.
A Partial Solution
Ten years ago, we believed we were on the road toward ending
North Korea's nuclear weapons program, once and for all. In 1992,
North Korea reached an agreement with South Korea to ensure a
Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons, but North Korea almost
immediately walked away from that arrangement. The U.S. stepped in
and, with the U.S.-DPRK Agreed Framework of 1994, succeeded in
freezing North Korea's known nuclear weapons program, a
plutonium-based effort centered on a place called Yongbyon.
In exchange for North Korea's promises eventually to come clean
about its nuclear past, dismantle its known facilities, and put its
remaining nuclear activities under full IAEA safeguards, the United
States organized under its leadership an international consortium
-- the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, or KEDO,
to finance and supply the light water reactor project. The KEDO
partners, primarily the Republic of Korea and Japan, have spent
over $1.3 billion dollars on the construction of two light water
reactors. And the U.S provided North Korea with half a billion
dollars worth of heavy fuel oil between 1994 and 2002, to replace
the energy presumed to be foregone by the freeze of the North's
nuclear program.
In the meantime, in response to a humanitarian crisis, the
United States and many other countries came to the rescue of the
North Korean people, who suffered a terrible famine in the
mid-1990s due primarily to the leadership's mismanagement of the
economy. Between 1995 and 2003, the United States alone provided
nearly 2 million metric tons of food aid worth $654 million dollars
to North Korea through the U.N. World Food Program. According to
the World Food Program, the international community as a whole has
provided an estimated average of 1.2 million metric tons of food
aid each year to North Korea since 1999.
North Korea Pursues an HEU Program
In the summer of 2002, however, the United States discovered
that North Korea had not kept its part of the bargain. We learned
conclusively that it was pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program
based not on plutonium but on uranium enrichment. This was a clear
violation of North Korea's obligations to South Korea under the
Joint Denuclearization Declaration of 1992 and to the international
community under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the DPRK's
Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
It was also a fundamental breach of the U.S.-DPRK Agreed
Framework, which aimed to achieve peace and security on a
nuclear-free Korean peninsula. By the way, our negotiator of the
Agreed Framework, Ambassador Robert Gallucci, left the North
Koreans in no doubt that any uranium enrichment program would break
the Agreed Framework. As he testified to Congress in December,
1994, the Agreed Framework requires the DPRK to implement the
North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula, which precludes any reprocessing or enrichment
capability. If there were ever any move to enrich, Ambassador
Gallucci told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we would
argue they were not in compliance with the Agreed Framework.
The matter was extremely serious. North Korea's goal appeared to
be a plant that could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for two
or more nuclear weapons per year when fully operational.
The President thus instructed me to lead an interagency U.S.
team to Pyongyang in October 2002 to quietly inform the North
Koreans that we knew about their secret nuclear arms program. I was
to tell them that we had intended to propose bilateral negotiations
on our entire range of concerns with North Korea, including missile
proliferation, chemical and biological weapons, conventional
forces, terrorism, and human rights. However, the North Koreans
violation of the Agreed Framework had put the nuclear issue again
front and center. I was to call on North Korea to reverse its
nuclear course, after which the United States would be prepared to
consider bilateral negotiations on other matters.
The North Koreans Escalate
Surprisingly, the North Koreans acknowledged their uranium
enrichment program to us and suggested that if we provided them
with additional benefits, they would, at some point in the future,
resolve our concerns about their nuclear programs -- how they would
do so, they did not say. In other words, even though the North
Koreans had violated the Agreed Framework, which had proven to be
only a partial and thus unsatisfactory solution, they were
proposing to us that we basically repeat the same formula. We
weren't prepared to accept that. As Secretary Powell has said, we
were not going to buy the same horse twice.
Instead of taking the opportunity we had afforded them to begin
walking back their covert nuclear arms program, the North Koreans
escalated the situation. In December 2002, they expelled IAEA
inspectors and began to reactivate the 5 megawatt nuclear reactor
at Yongbyon. In January, the DPRK announced its withdrawal from the
NPT. And in October 2003, it declared it had finished reprocessing
its 8,000-plus existing spent fuel rods. If that is indeed the
case, it could have produced enough fissile material for an
additional five or six nuclear weapons.
The North Korean Acknowledgement and Subsequent Denial
Let me digress here briefly to address the issue of the North
Koreans acknowledgement to me of their uranium enrichment program,
because they later began to deny that they had done so, causing
some confusion in the media.
The acknowledgement came over the entire course of a
40-minute-long meeting that my team and I had with North Korean
First Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok Ju, the number two man in the
North Korean foreign ministry and said to be close to Kim Jong
Il.
Kang's remarks were interpreted into English by his own
interpreter, and his original Korean presentation was monitored by
our side's experienced professional interpreter.
It was very clear to all members of my team that Kang was
acknowledging the existence of a highly enriched uranium program
and that North Korea was willing to negotiate about addressing our
concerns about it if the United States first provided additional
benefits to North Korea.
Thereafter, for nearly two months, even after we publicly stated
that the North Koreans had acknowledged the uranium enrichment
program to us, the DPRK did not deny the program or the
acknowledgement. Instead, to the rest of the world, the DPRK
essentially took an NCND position -- that is, to neither confirm
nor deny the program. Only later, when it became clear that this
was a major tactical error that was resulting in massive
international criticism, did DPRK officials first begin to suggest
that the United States had misunderstood its statements, and later
still that the United States had lied about them. Only much later
did the North Koreans actually begin to claim that they have no HEU
program.
In any event, the key point in regard to this issue is that the
steps taken by the United States subsequent to my mission to
Pyongyang in October 2002 were in response not to the North Korean
acknowledgement but to our knowledge, based on our own
intelligence, of the North Korean uranium enrichment program. We
are confident that our intelligence in this matter is well-founded.
In fact, the recent confession of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan suggests
that, if anything, the North Korean HEU program is of longer
duration and more advanced than we had assessed.
U.S. Policy
So how are we to respond to this very serious situation in which
North Korea has lifted the freeze on its plutonium-based nuclear
arms program and is aggressively pursuing an enriched-uranium
nuclear arms program? The United States has adopted two basic
principles for resolving this situation. First, we cannot accept
anything less than the complete, verifiable, and irreversible
dismantlement of the North's nuclear programs. Second, the
diplomatic format for achieving that outcome must be a multiparty
framework.
Complete, Verifiable and Irreversible Dismantlement
We insist on the complete, verifiable and irreversible
dismantlement of all of North Korea's nuclear programs because we
must not again allow a situation in which the North's dismantlement
of its nuclear arms program is put off into the distant future, as
it was under the Agreed Framework. That would permit North Korea,
at any time, to resume its use of nuclear threats to blackmail the
international community.
We will not be satisfied with a resolution that is not complete.
North Korea must dismantle not only its plutonium program but also
its uranium enrichment program and its existing nuclear
weapons.
We will not be satisfied with a resolution that is not
verifiable. In this regard, the burden is not on the international
community but on North Korea to come clean. As the Libya cases
illustrates, there are ways that North Korea can do this as a
sovereign country. It is certainly in North Korea's interests, as
it is in Libya's.
We will not be satisfied with a reversible solution. This must
be once and for all. North Korea's nuclear programs and facilities
must be dismantled, and never reconstituted. Mechanisms can be
found to do this that are reasonable. This will not be difficult to
accomplish once North Korea has made a fundamental decision to
abandon its nuclear programs.
The Advantages of a Multilateral Framework
To accomplish these ends, the United States has strongly
supported a multilateral process. Some have criticized this, and
urged that multilateral talks be replaced, or at least
supplemented, by bilateral U.S.-DPRK negotiations on the nuclear
issue. We don't intend to do that. Let me explain why.
First, and most important, the DPRK's nuclear arms programs are
not just a bilateral U.S.-North Korean issue. North Korea's pursuit
of a nuclear arsenal is a serious threat to regional peace and
security and a challenge to the global non-proliferation regime.
The United States bilateral effort to address the problem,
resulting in the Agreed Framework of 1994, was less than
successful. Other countries need to bring their interests,
influence, and resources to bear, not only in persuading North
Korea to end its nuclear arms program but to ensure that the
program is never resumed and that broader conditions on the Korean
Peninsula are conducive to lasting peace and security. I might add
that South Korea and Japan have their own relations and problems
with the DPRK, and these are being addressed far more directly than
was the case 10 years ago.
Thus, in early 2003, the United States proposed multilateral
talks to end North Korea's nuclear program. The PRC made strenuous
efforts with North Korea to realize such talks. The result was
trilateral talks in Beijing in April, with participation by the
PRC, North Korea, and the U.S., and Six-Party Talks in Beijing in
August, which also included the Republic of Korea, Japan, and
Russia.
The two rounds of multilateral talks in Beijing represented
important first steps in achieving a fundamental solution of the
North Korean nuclear problem. The North Koreans heard from all of
the other parties present that a North Korean nuclear weapons
capability is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. And the other
parties heard first-hand North Korea's threats to expand its
nuclear weapons program. This was very important, because, in the
past, the North Koreans utilized the tactic of making such threats
to the United States while denying them to others -- of taking a
hard-line position with us while telling others that it was the
United States that was hard-line.
But it isn't just the United States that the DPRK plays off
against. During the decades of Sino-Soviet rivalry, North Korea
became adept at playing one off against the other. With the end of
the Cold War, North Korea has continued to focus on dealing
bilaterally with all of its neighbors, playing them off against
each other.
The six-party format helps to deny North Korea the opportunity
to play its neighbors off, one against the other. The result is
increased understanding and solidarity among the six-party
participants about the nature and seriousness of the North Korean
nuclear problem.
Preparing for Round Two of Six-Party Talks
As I noted, the second round of Six-Party Talks is less than two
weeks away. We will meet in Beijing on February 25, and we expect
that the round will result in further progress toward a permanent
solution, even if the progress may not be readily apparent.
At the talks, as I have stressed, the aim of the United States
will be the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of
North Korea's nuclear programs. That is our focus, but we are
prepared to listen carefully and respond to all positions.
North Korea has said that its nuclear arms program is a
defensive response to the hostility of the Bush administration, and
it has demanded, among other things, security assurances from the
United States before it will, as it says, consider resolving
American concerns. I would note that the DPRK's HEU program existed
long before the Bush administration was inaugurated. I would also
note that President Bush stated as early as February 2002 that the
United States has no intention of invading or attacking North
Korea. Nevertheless, in an effort to move the process along,
President Bush stated last October that the United States was
willing to join other participants in the Six-Party Talks in
providing security assurances to North Korea in the context of its
complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of its nuclear
program.
In preparing for the next round, we have consulted especially
closely with our allies the Republic of Korea and Japan, both
bilaterally and trilaterally. We have also had extensive bilateral
consultations with both the PRC and Russia.
President Bush is committed to a diplomatic solution and is
convinced that multilateral talks are the appropriate diplomatic
forum, for the reasons I have described. We are confident that the
Six-Party Talks offer the best opportunity to persuade North Korea
to end its nuclear arms program and thereby to open up brighter
prospects for the entire region. That is not to say that we expect
to resolve the nuclear problem in a matter of a few weeks or even a
few months. It is a difficult issue and will take time. But we will
take the time necessary to achieve a fundamental and permanent
solution.
IAI and PSI to Continue on Their Merits
Meanwhile, the U.S. is currently working with many of North
Korea's neighbors in East Asia to enhance law enforcement and
judicial cooperation to address North Korea's illicit and criminal
activities. North Korea is involved in activities such as
counterfeiting, drug-running, and smuggling. We are also working
towards implementing the President's Proliferation Security
Initiative [PSI], a separate program to counter the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and missiles. While not directed at
North Korea, North Korea is affected because it is the world's
leading proliferator. These initiatives will be continued on their
merits.
Conclusion
North Korea has an opportunity to change its path. As some
Americans might put it there is a chance for redemption. The
examples of Libya, Ukraine, South Africa and others demonstrate
that there is real reason for hope that North Korea will eventually
respond. States, even those with existing nuclear arms, can decide
that abandoning nuclear weapons is in their interests. Presumably,
the intention of the DPRK leadership in embracing nuclear weapons
was to enhance the regime's security and status. Clearly, the
effect has been the opposite. With continued international
solidarity, there is good reason to believe that North Korea will
eventually rethink its assumptions and reverse course. The
Six-Party Talks offer North Korea a path toward international
responsibility and increased well being for its people. The United
States sincerely hopes that the DPRK will take the opportunity.
Thank you.
Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov.
Back to the Top of the Page
'Bolton Says Success of Six-Party Talks Depends on North
Korea,' February 19, 2004.
Under Secretary of State John R. Bolton
Press Conference
February 19, 2004
U.S. Embassy
Tokyo, Japan
U/S BOLTON: Thank you for coming out today. I've been here in
Tokyo for two days of consultations on a broad array of
non-proliferation and international security matters. In
particular, I was following up on President Bush's very important
speech on Wednesday of last week at our National Defense
University, where he addressed the problems of the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and in particular the unraveling of
the black market network of Dr. A.Q. Khan of Pakistan.
I think one of the reasons that the President wanted to go
through the explanation of what Khan's network did and how it
supplied Libya, Iran and North Korea with uranium enrichment and
other weapons-related technologies was to show the nature of the
proliferation problem as it exists around the world today, and also
to provide a context for the seven specific proposals that the
President made to address it, all of which we have discussed at
some length here in Japan, including expanding the President's own
initiative, the Proliferation Security Initiative, which is off to
a very rapid start around the world, and which has had an impact
already in the Libyan decision to renounce its WMD programs and
long range ballistic missiles.
We also talked about the expansion of the G-8 Global
Partnership, which was created at the Kananaskis G-8 summit two
years ago, and which will be one of the issues along with other
proliferation questions that are one of the main areas of emphasis
at the Sea Islands Summit, where President Bush will host Prime
Minister Koizumi and the other G-8 leaders this summer.
We talked about the President's ideas to close the loopholes in
the nuclear non-proliferation regime to prevent the spread of the
dangerous technologies involving uranium enrichment and plutonium
reprocessing that enabled states to get very substantially along
the nuclear fuel cycle toward a nuclear weapons capability, as well
as some of President's other ideas for strengthening the capacity
of the international system to deal with the problem of WMD
proliferation.
We also obviously talked about the dramatic developments in
Libya, which has reversed years of a policy pursuing weapons of
mass destruction in order to renounce those weapons, having come to
the conclusion that they would be more secure without the weapons
than with them. We talked about Iran, we talked about North Korea
and we talked about a range of other issues as well. So perhaps,
with that, let me just stop, and I'd be delighted to try to answer
any questions you may have.
QUESTION: Ryan Nakashima of AFP. You told NHK in an interview
broadcast last night that North Korea's unwillingness to discuss
their uranium enrichment program could subvert President Bush's
determination to resolve the nuclear crisis through diplomacy. Does
that mean that the U.S. would consider the use of force or
sanctions? Could you expand on your comments?
U/S BOLTON: The President has been very clear for well over a
year that he seeks a multilateral diplomatic solution to the
problem of the North Korean nuclear weapons programs. He seeks the
peaceful elimination of that program, and we have devised a formula
that I think is going to be shared by the government of Japan and
others in the six-party talks. We want the complete, verifiable and
irreversible dismantlement of all of North Korea's nuclear weapons
programs. Now, North Korea has pursued, in our judgment, two routes
toward a nuclear weapons capability, one a plutonium route and the
other the uranium-enrichment route. So to say, as the government of
North Korea has done since first admitting that they had a nuclear
enrichment capability and then denying it later, to say they're not
going to discuss it means that you can't reach the issue of
complete dismantlement, let alone verification if they don't admit
that it exists. The issue of how to pursue the six-party talks if
North Korea persists in that position, I think, is going to be an
issue we're going to have to address. But in our view, to get all
the issues out on the table, rather than try to limit the number of
issues, as North Korea appears to be doing in a number of respects,
is going to be a very important diplomatic aspect of the talks.
QUESTION: Satoru Suzuki, TV Asahi. Mr. Secretary, I am wondering
how the United States is going to address the issue of the
abductions by North Korea in the forthcoming six-party talks.
What's your goal as far as the abduction case is concerned? Do you
believe that the abductions by North Korea are acts of terrorism?
Is it possible that the State Department will specifically mention
the abductions by North Korea in its report on state-sponsored
terrorism, which is due out late in the spring?
U/S BOLTON: Well, bear in the mind, we have said -- the
President has said -- that there is the possibility of a completely
new relationship between North Korea and the United States if North
Korea will deal with our concerns on its nuclear weapons program,
but also its chemical weapons program, its biological weapons
program, its human rights violations in North Korea, and the
disposition of conventional forces on the Korean peninsula, among
other issues. And I think in the last round of six-party talks, the
question of the North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens was
something that was raised by both the United States and Japan -- I
think most predominately by Japan. I think that's appropriate. It's
Japanese citizens who have been kidnapped, and the United States is
going to stand very firmly with Japan in its position on how to
deal with the abduction question. There shouldn't be any doubt on
that point.
I think kidnapping is an act of terrorism. I don't see how you
can describe it any other way. Whether it will appear as such in
the report, on the annual publication of the list of state sponsors
of terrorism, I couldn't say, but certainly from the perspective of
any government's responsibilities to protect its citizens when
another government is kidnapping them, that's something that they
can only deal with in the most serious way, as the government of
Japan has consistently dealt with that issue since the North
Koreans admitted doing the kidnappings, along with admitting having
a uranium enrichment program.
QUESTION: Joe Palmer with Associated Press. There have been some
reports out of South Korea that the North Koreans are expressing
some willingness to discuss the uranium issue. Have you heard any
of this, and do you consider it a hopeful sign?
U/S BOLTON: Well, I have seen the press reports, and with all
due respect to members of the press, sometimes they're accurate and
sometimes they're not. I think the real question is what the North
Koreans say next week. I must say it's hard to describe that as a
sign of progress. I mean, imagine the mindset you're looking at --
North Korea admits to discuss reality, and we call that progress.
Maybe it is progress.
QUESTION: Mitsuru Obe of the Jiji Press news agency. China was
apparently behind the proliferation of nuclear technology to
countries like North Korea and Pakistan. What do you think is the
motive of China behind this proliferation drive? Why did that
country want to spread that technology? China recently appears to
be more cooperative towards nonproliferation. Does that represent a
change of heart on the part of China, or is that just a trick?
U/S BOLTON: Well, China has said very explicitly to us that they
have not engaged in any assistance to the North Korean nuclear
weapons program, and we don't have any reason not to take that
statement at face value. We have long been concerned about external
Chinese proliferation activity in the nuclear field and the missile
field, and it's one reason why some time ago President Jiang Zemin
and President Bush decided that our two countries should have a
strategic dialogue on that question and others. I was just in
Beijing earlier this week having the third session of that dialogue
on strategic issues. So we are continuing to work with the
government of China.
There have been various reports associated with A. Q. Khan's
activities, specifically with respect to weapons designs and where
that information may have come from. I'm not going to comment on
that at this point, but I think this is something that demonstrates
the gravity of this international black market in nuclear weapons
technology and weapons of mass destruction generally. It's a very
sophisticated operation. It's highly camouflaged, difficult to
detect, it doesn't all necessarily come from states that have WMD
technology. Therefore, I think we've learned not to draw
conclusions too quickly about what the source of some of this
material is, but to analyze it and to work with all the governments
involved to try to reduce the international trafficking. That's why
the cooperation, for example, of the government of Japan on the
proliferation security initiative has been so important, and why we
have continued to discuss PSI with governments like China and
Russia, to try and persuade them of the merits of PSI and get them
more actively involved in our ongoing interdiction efforts.
QUESTION: Lindsay Whipp from Bloomberg News. I have a question
concerning a Japanese oil company's announcement today that they
were going to invest in developing the uranium oil field in
Azadegan. The U.S. has already said that they were not really in
agreement with this, given your concerns about the nuclear weapons
program in Iran. Did you have any talks today concerning that, and
how is this going to affect your relationship with Japan concerning
nonproliferation?
U/S BOLTON: We've had a number of conversations over the past
two days about Azadegan and the agreement that was signed. I think
the United States has given its position on this agreement before.
Let me address the implications in the area of proliferation. I am
very confident that the view of Japan and the United States on the
Iranian nuclear weapons program is essentially the same, and I am
not at all concerned that this decision will weaken our cooperation
in ensuring that Iran is held to account on its obligations under
the nonproliferation treaty and under the resolutions of the Board
of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. And I would
just note Prime Minister Koizumi's statement earlier today, which I
think in the nuclear proliferation area is precisely in line with
American thinking, so I'm not troubled by it at all.
QUESTION: I am Ishiguro from Yomiuri newspaper. A recent
Washington Post report indicated that the design of the nuclear
explosive device that was obtained in Libya and that is right now
in the hands of U.S. authorities was the size of 1000 pounds, in
other words, it was 450 kilograms. The design was originated from
Dr. Khan. Do you confirm that point, especially about the size of
that device? In that case, is it also probable that the same design
was transferred to North Korea and that it was already incorporated
in their own explosive device that could be a perfect fit as a
warhead for the No-dong?
U/S BOLTON: Well, I'm not going to comment here on anything with
respect to the contents of the weapons design documents that we
received from the government of Libya. They are under analysis. We
have discussed the weapons design documents with the IAEA and with
the British. I think we will be taking appropriate action based on
a further analysis, but I really don't want to get into the
specifics here today because I think more work needs to be done on
this.
QUESTION: My name is Yumiko Asada from Australian Broadcasting
Corporation. Japan has just passed a legislation allowing to put
sanctions on North Korea, and also considering banning North Korean
ships. Would you encourage Japan to go ahead with these threats to
put more pressure on North Korea?
U/S BOLTON: I think the question of what sanctions authority the
Diet wants to grant to the government is obviously a domestic
question here. My understanding of the statute already enacted and
some of the bills that are under consideration is that it
authorizes the government to make sanctions decisions based on
national security concerns, and at least in broad strokes that is
authority very similar to the sanctions authority that the
government of the United States possesses. Our judgment is that
judiciously applied sanctions can have a very important impact in
the realm of non-proliferation, and I think to the extent that
Japanese authorities are now becoming more consistent with American
authorities, I think it enhances the possibility for joint action,
for cooperation in the international sanctions field, and I have to
say that's a very positive step.
QUESTION: I'm Ichinose with NHK. I have a question about the
nuclear black market. There are some reports that a Japanese
company is involved in this network. Have you discussed this matter
with Japanese authorities?
U/S BOLTON: One of the attributes of the black market in WMD
technology is that firms that are very skilled technologically and
sophisticated can find themselves unwittingly involved in the
export of technology that can be used for nuclear or other WMD
purposes. I think you have to be very careful before you assume
that the firm itself is witting in this sort of trafficking. Now
having said that, the United States has a very comprehensive system
of export controls, as does Japan, and we take these law
enforcement obligations very seriously, as does Japan. But no law
enforcement system is perfect, and it could be that exports have
taken place without the appropriate licenses, or that the licenses
were not properly applied for. There are a variety of circumstances
that we could think about. That's one of the reasons that the
international black market is as difficult to break through as it
is, because the variety of sources that proliferators can go to is
so large. There may be other reports. We may hear reports of
equipment from other countries in Europe, from the United States.
Nothing would surprise me given the depth and complexity of this
black market. I think we have to work our way through it, and I
think we have to learn from the information that becomes available
to us, both in the case of Libya and in the case of A.Q. Khan, to
make our various efforts to reduce proliferation more effective --
our national legislation, our export control regimes, the
proliferation security initiative, and a range of others as
well.
QUESTION: Amy Bickers, Voice Of America. Could you please
outline your expectations for the upcoming round of six-party
talks?
U/S BOLTON: Well, they are going to be held in Beijing on
February 25th. I think the real issue here is what North Korea
says. I think the United States and Japan and others have made
their positions pretty clear. What we'd like to see is the
strategic decision by North Korea that it's going to give up its
nuclear weapons programs -- all of its nuclear weapons programs.
What follows from that, both in terms of substantive developments
in the talks and procedural developments in the talks, will have to
depend on the attitude that North Korea brings. It's not a question
of being optimistic or pessimistic. It's a question of being
realistic. And since the responsibility really lies with North
Korea, until we actually hear what they have to say, I don't think
we can really prognosticate about the likely outcome. The President
has been very clear -- we want to pursue a diplomatic solution
through this multi-lateral mechanism. And that's what we'll
continue to do.
QUESTION: Sachiko Sakamaki with the Washington Post. What's your
evaluation from Japanese officials' response to the Bush initiative
trying to enforce the non-proliferation, such as cooperation of law
enforcement and also, I believe, that you want to expand more
nations to come to join PSI -- what is your feeling after the
meeting with Japanese officials?
U/S BOLTON: Japan has been a key participant in the
Proliferation Security Initiative since President Bush announced it
on May 31st of last year. They've been involved in all of the
meetings of the diplomatic core group, beginning in Madrid in June.
They've participated in the meetings of the working groups on
intelligence and operations. Japan has participated through sending
one of its Coast Guard ships to the very first operational
exercise, Pacific Protector, which was lead by the Australians in
the Coral Sea in the fall of last year. Japan has undertaken a
series of activities with countries in the Asian region to work
with them to build up their export control regimes and their
national capacities to explain what PSI is about and to encourage
their participation. I think one of the positive outcomes of all
that is in Lisbon we will welcome three new full members into PSI
-- Canada, Norway, but also Singapore. I think that's very
significant, to have another Asian country as a core group member,
and we're looking forward to that. I also want to say PSI is a
different kind of initiative than a traditional international
organization. We have a saying -- PSI is an activity, not an
organization. PSI is an activity, not an organization. So what we
really want are countries to cooperate with us -- in the
intelligence area, in the military area, in the law enforcement
area -- to help us interdict trafficking in weapons of mass
destruction and WMD related materials. So a lot of activity can go
on and has been going on -- in Asia, in South Asia, in Europe,
Middle East -- to work together to try and dry up this trafficking
in WMD materials. That's very important whether countries formally
join the organization or the activity or not.
QUESTION: My name is Ikuko Higuchi, the Yomiuri Shimbun. I have
a question about PSI. How many more countries would you expect to
join it? For example, are there any efforts going on for the
participation of China and South Korea?
U/S BOLTON: I think our expectation is in terms of the core
group. I don't think we're going to get much larger than 15-20. I
think one of the real advantages of keeping it small is that it
allows us to be more flexible. But we have received already over
sixty public statements of support by governments around the world
for the statement of interdiction principals that we announced in
Paris last fall, and actively joined with us to prepare for and
conduct PSI interdictions. I think we've already explained one of
the interdictions that was very successful -- the shipment of
uranium centrifuge equipment down for Libya, that through the
cooperation of Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom was diverted,
and the information used to help persuade the Libyans to make their
decision to renounce weapons of mass destruction. So I think all of
this activity has been proceeding, and with really a great deal of
rapidity in diplomatic terms. But it's also one of the reasons why
the President, in his speech last week, felt it important to
suggest that PSI be expanded, not just to engage in interdiction
efforts to stop the movement, the trafficking of the WMD materials,
but as he said to demolish their laboratories, dry up their
financial flows, and in general try to look at the entire spectrum
of WMD activity that would enable us to take more vigorous steps to
stop this trafficking, and where we can't stop it to raise the
political and economic cost to proliferators. I think that was one
of the real consequences of the interdiction with respect to Libya
that I mentioned, and an important factor in allowing Libya to come
to the conclusion that this pursuit of weapons of mass destruction
was not in its national interest.
QUESTION: Yutaka Ishiguro of Yomiuri newspaper. About the
proliferation of Dr. Khan. The authority of Pakistan's government
is always denying its own involvement in Dr. Khan's activity, and
the military also denied its involvement. How credible, in your
assessment, are these claims?
U/S BOLTON: President Musharraf fired A.Q. Khan as head of the
Khan research laboratories about three and a half years ago, which
is a pretty good indication of, I think, where President Musharraf
stands. We have been in discussions with him. Secretary Powell has
spoken with President Musharraf several times over the course of
the administration about how strongly we feel about not having any
outward proliferation activities, particularly on the nuclear
front. From Pakistan, President Musharraf has repeatedly assured us
that no one ... he doesn't, and his government, does not sanction
any of this activity, and we take him at his word on that. I think
he has handled Dr. Khan, and Dr. Khan's confession on public
television in Pakistan about his proliferation activities,
extremely well. I think we are looking forward to additional
information about Khan's activities, which I think in respect of
North Korea and Iran and possibly other countries, is going to be
quite important in stemming the tide of WMD proliferation
activities.
Thank you very much.
Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov.
Back to the Top of the Page
IV. North Korea
DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman on Six-way
Talks
Pyongyang, February 29 (KCNA) -- A spokesman for the Foreign
Ministry of the DPRK today gave the following answer to a question
put by KCNA as regards the six-way talks held in Beijing: The
six-way talks on the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S.
took place in Beijing from February 25 to 28.
We attended the talks with expectation that a frank discussion
on ways of seeking a solution to the nuclear issue between the DPRK
and the U.S. would open a certain prospect of settling the
issue.
Hence, we showed greatest magnanimity, clarifying its
transparent will to scrap its nuclear program according to a
proposal for a simultaneous package solution aimed to denuclearize
the Korean peninsula and advancing fair and flexible proposals for
implementing measures for the first-phase actions.
China, Russia and other participants in the talks, therefore,
expressed support and understanding of our reasonable proposal.
However, the U.S. again insisted on its old assertion about the
DPRK's abandoning its nuclear program first, saying that it can
discuss the DPRK's concerns only when it completely scraps its
nuclear program in a verifiable and irreversible manner. This threw
a big hurdle in the way of the talks.
It also absurdly asserted that it can not normalize relations
with the DPRK unless missile, conventional weapons, biological and
chemical weapons, human rights and other issues are settled even
after its abandonment of all its nuclear programs.
The attitude of the U.S. side towards the talks increased our
disappointment.
The U.S. side unhesitatingly said that it was not willing to
negotiate with the DPRK, far from showing any sincere intention to
settle the issue.
The head of its delegation only read the prepared script without
stammering and showed no sincerity, giving no answer even to the
questions raised.
The U.S. did not show any stand to co-exist with the DPRK in
peace as it did during the six-way talks held in August last year
but once again disclosed its ulterior aim to persistently pursue
its policy of isolating and stifling the DPRK, wasting time behind
the scene of the dialogue.
The U.S. seems to calculate that the DPRK will collapse of its
own accord if it wastes time, putting pressure upon the DPRK
undergoing economic difficulties. This is little short of a
behavior of a bat-blind person who knows nothing of the DPRK.
The socialist system of Korean style which is guided by the
Juche idea and where the entire army and all the people are
single-heartedly united, true to the Songun politics, will never
shake in any tempest.
The U.S. seems to waste time in a bid to attain its political
purpose but any delay in the solution of the nuclear issue would
cause nothing unfavorable to the DPRK.
This would give us time to take all necessary measures with an
increased pace.
Any further six-way talks will not prove helpful to the solution
of the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. unless the U.S.
shows its will to make a switchover in its policy toward the
DPRK.
In spite of this situation we consented to the time to open the
next round of the six-way talks and to the issue of organizing a
working group proceeding from the sincere and patient stand to seek
a negotiated peaceful solution of the nuclear issue at any
cost.
It is difficult to expect that any further talks would help find
a solution to the issue.
The settlement of the nuclear issue will entirely depend on the
change in the U.S. attitude.
Source: Korean Central News Agency of the DPRK, http://www.kcna.co.jp.
Back to the Top of the Page
Kim Kye-gwan, North Korea's vice foreign minister and chief
delegate to the talks, at a news conference in North Korea's
embassy after the talks
"The United States did not show the right posture for
negotiations... There is a fundamental difference in attitude
between the US delegation and the DPRK delegation, a fundamental
difference between the US government and the DPRK government...
"To acquire foreign currency, we have sold missiles to Pakistan
and received cash. But as to heavy enriched uranium (HEU), which we
don't even need, there were no deals with Pakistan. I want to make
clear that we do not have enriched uranium, that we do not have the
facilities, scientists or experts related to HEU."
"A nuclear freeze means giving up activities related to nuclear
weapons. We cannot give up nuclear development for civilian
use."
"We cannot come out with a substantive and positive result from
the six-party talks. You can say prospects of the six-party talks
lie entirely with the US side. It would be a grave mistake if the
United States thinks that there is unlimited time."
Source: BBC News online, http://news.bbc.co.uk.
Back to the Top of the Page
V. South Korea
South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuck
"If all countries participate with a sincere and tolerant
attitude, I firmly believe that we can further expand common points
while acknowledging differences between each other."
Source: Associated Press, from http://www.washingtonpost.com.
Back to the Top of the Page
N Korea offered energy aid
South Korea, China and Russia have agreed to offer the North
energy aid if it freezes then scraps its nuclear programme, a Seoul
official said.
Lee Soo-hyuck made the comments after the second day of
six-party talks being held in Beijing on the nuclear crisis.
Mr Lee said the US and Japan, the other parties at the talks,
supported the bid to break the diplomatic deadlock.
But he said Pyongyang was yet to respond to the offer. Talks on
the crisis will resume on Friday.
North Korea's economic problems have led to severe energy
shortages, which were exacerbated by a US-led decision to suspend
shipments of fuel aid to the country.
"The energy aid requires a presumption that North Korea freezes
its nuclear activity as a beginning step to dismantle all of its
nuclear programs completely, irreversibly and verifiably," Mr Lee
said.
He said the US and Japan "expressed their understanding and
support for this" but did not say that they would join in the
offer.
Source: BBC News Online, http://news.bbc.co.uk.
VI. Japan
Press Conference 27 February 2004, with Press Secretary
Hatsuhisa Takashima, Japan Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Question concerning China's stance at six-party talks on North
Korea
Q: Currently, the six-party talks are going on in China. I have
a question about the Chinese attitude toward the raising of the
issue of abduction during the talks. Has there been any change in
the Chinese attitude in this second round of talks compared to the
first round that was held last year?
Mr. Takashima: First of all, we appreciate the Chinese effort to
organize this second round of talks.
To answer your question, my understanding is that the Chinese
side fully understands the Japanese position that without there
being a resolution of the abduction cases as part of a
comprehensive solution of the North Korean issues, including the
nuclear issue, Japan cannot participate in any sort of final
solution which includes economic cooperation to North Korea. We
believe that the Chinese Government fully understands our position.
We do not see any sort of change in the attitude of the Chinese
side between the last session and the current round.
Press Conference 24 February 2004, with Press Secretary
Hatsuhisa Takashima, Japan Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Question concerning upcoming six-party talks on North Korea
Q: The latest round of six-way talks on North Korea will begin
in Beijing, People's Republic of China on 25 March. What does Japan
hope will come out of those talks? And, is there any reason to
expect any more progress or success than in previous talks?
Mr. Takashima: We are hoping that this second round of six-party
talks will produce progress toward a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula
and a resolution of the bilateral issues between Japan and North
Korea, including the abduction cases.
We have been urging North Korea to come forward with a positive
attitude and manner on those serious problems we have before us.
There are various press reports concerning the possible development
and outcome of the negotiation to be held in Beijing from tomorrow
onward, but we make no prejudgments of such things. Rather, we will
participate in the talks without any preconceptions, except to say
that our goal is to achieve a complete, verifiable and irreversible
dismantlement of the nuclear development program of North
Korea.
Concerning the bilateral issues between Japan and North Korea,
the Japanese side is hoping that during the course of these talks,
there will be an opportunity to have the Japanese officials meet
with the North Korean officials and to discuss the bilateral issues
in accordance with the basic understanding and agreement reached
during the recent Japan-North Korea talks in Pyongyang. Japan
certainly will raise the issue of abduction during the opening
remarks of the six-party talks because we would like to make it
very clear that we want to achieve a comprehensive solution of all
the issues concerning North Korea, including the abduction cases
and the nuclear issues.
Q: To follow that up, has anything changed since the last round
of talks in August to make Japan think that this round will be any
more productive?
Mr. Takashima: The only visible difference is that North Korea
agreed to hold bilateral talks between Japan and North Korea on top
of agreeing to this second round of six-party talks. Other than
that, we will see how North Korea will act at the actual scene of
the talks.
Source: Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.mofa.go.jp.
Back to the Top of the Page
VII. Russia
Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov in an interview
with Tass before his departure from Beijing: "Attempts and
efforts will be made in the near future to set up such a group and
to outline a range of its tasks," he noted.
"If work proceeds smoothly. If not, questions will pop up on
prospects of the entire process, which would be an undesirable
thing of course." Appraising the results of the second round,
Losyukov stated that "expectations have come true".
"On the other hand, there is a feeling of dissatisfaction, since
the negotiators could have achieved more. But this, regrettably,
depended on the positions of our leading partners in the talks -
the U.S. and North Korea," the diplomat continued.
Losyukov pointed to the persisting "great difference" in the
approaches of Pyongyang and Washington, which "interferes with
progress" of the dialogue. According to the deputy minister,
"despite some signs of flexibility", their stands remain "very
tough".
Source: ITAR-TASS, http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/.
Back to the Top of the Page
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov said
North Korea is prepared to freeze its nuclear research for the
period of preparations for the process eliminating its nuclear
programme. The Russian diplomat said North Korea back in December
2003 offered to freeze its nuclear projects - apparently having in
mind both military and civilian programmes - and to terminate all
related activities for the period of preparations for further steps
to eliminate its nuclear programme.
"This freeze is not an end, but a means, an interim phase on the
road leading to the full elimination of North Korean nuclear
projects," the Russian diplomat said.
Statements to this effect were made at the current round of
talks and on several earlier occasions last year, Losyukov said.
This time North Korea's position met with a "very favourable and
positive response from all participants in the negotiations."
At the same time, North Korea put forward a number of
preconditions and reservations, including guarantees that would let
it develop normally, exist in a calm environment and feel no risk
of attack or restrictions of its sovereignty," Losyukov said.
Russia, he said, regards North Korea's proposal for a nuclear
programme freeze as the first step towards the program's ultimate
elimination.
"Russia and China are in the first place interested in the
elimination of Pyongyang's nuclear arms programme. As for the
civilian nuclear research, this is an intricate affair, because
North Korea is not a participant in the non-proliferation regime
and not liable to IAEA rules."
Losyukov said major differences remained in the understanding of
"what there is in North Korea and what is to be eliminated." He
described as "tough" the stance of the United States and its
allies, which keep demanding instant termination of all North
Korean nuclear programmes.
"Naturally, North Korea cannot agree with this. A certain
discrepancy remains and there are very big doubts it will be done
away with at this round of talks."
Russia believes it is very unrealistic to demand Pyongyang
should instantly drop all of its nuclear programs. "In our opinion,
it would be more feasible and productive to move on gradually
towards the curtailment of North Korean nuclear programs. In our
opinion the North Korean leadership is prepared to accept this,"
Losyukov said.
Source: ITAR-TASS, http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/.
Back to the Top of the Page
BEIJING, February 26 (Itar-Tass) -- At the on-going six-party
talks in Beijing Russia has confirmed it may provide energy
assistance to Pyongyang in exchange for its decision to drop the
nuclear arms development program, Russian Deputy Foreign
Minister Alexander Losyukov has told Tass.
"Such assistance is possible in principle," he said. "If there
is the government's approval, the resources to provide energy
supplies may be found." Losyukov speculated Russia might supply
either crude oil or electricity. He did not specify the terms on
which Moscow might provide energy assistance to Pyongyang,
though.
Source: ITAR-TASS, http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/.
Back to the Top of the Page
Russian Foreign Ministry statement
"Moscow considers the negotiations useful and has expressed a
readiness to do everything that is needed to solve the nuclear
problem on the Korean Peninsula, and ensuring the safety of North
Korea and normal conditions for its socio-economic
development."
Russian delegate Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander
Losyukov
"Of course, to be honest, some flexibility could have been shown
by the US in response to the North Korean freeze proposal, but this
is the position of that country and we respect it, just as we
respect the positions of the other parties to the talks. It means
the time has not yet come."
Russia's ambassador to China, Igor Rogachev
"Speaking about the differences between the main negotiation
participants, North Korea and the U.S., this distance has somewhat
decreased, but of course not so considerably as we would like it
to." "Both Russia and China have practically identical positions on
all issues addressed at the talks. We had a common goal: to find
ways and approaches to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue and
to help Washington and Pyongyang reach an agreement. No
breakthrough has been made in this area yet. But nevertheless, the
search for solutions will now continue through working groups."
Source: BBC News Online, http://news.bbc.co.uk.
© 2003 The Acronym Institute.
|
