12 July 2000

Einhorn Press Conference on N. Korea Missile Talks

U.S. and North Korean delegations discussed a variety of missile issues -- including North Korea's indigenous missile capabilities and its export of missiles and related technology -- during July 10-12 meetings in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, according to Robert Einhorn, assistant secretary of state for non-proliferation.

Einhorn told reporters in a July 12 press conference that significant developments, such as U.S. sanctions-easing measures and North Korean reaffirmation of a moratorium on flight testing of long-range missiles, have improved the environment of negotiations since the last round of talks in March of 1999.

"We hope that this improved environment will be reflected shortly in being able to make concrete progress toward our goals," Einhorn said.

As North Korea continues to address U.S. concerns about missile programs and other issues, the United States will continue step-by-step progress toward full political and economic normalization with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) under the Agreed Framework of 1994, the assistant secretary said.

Improved U.S.-DPRK relations will have tangible benefits for North Korea, but "the North Koreans should not be compensated for agreeing to stop conducting activities that they shouldn't be conducting in the first place," Einhorn emphasized.

The assistant secretary expressed his hope that the sixth round of missile talks will occur within the next few months.

Following is a transcript of the briefing:

Press Office
Embassy of the United States of America
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
July 12, 2000

Assistant Secretary of State for Non-Proliferation Robert Einhorn
Transcript of Remarks and Q&A
At the Conclusion of U.S.-DPRK Missile Talks
U.S Embassy Kuala Lumpur, 2:00 P.M.

Assistant Secretary Einhorn: U.S. and North Korean delegations have just concluded three days of missile talks here in Kuala Lumpur. The discussions were substantive and candid. They covered a wide range of missile issues, including North Korea's export of missiles and missile-related equipment and technology as well as North Korea's indigenous missile capabilities.

This was the fifth round of bilateral missile talks. The last round was held in Pyongyang in March 1999. Since then, significant developments have taken place in relations between the United States and the DPRK, including North Korea's reaffirmation on June 20th of its moratorium on the flight testing of long-range missiles of any kind and the U.S. implementation on June 19th of certain sanctions-easing measures toward North Korea. The just-concluded round provided a useful opportunity to assess developments during the16-month hiatus in the talks, to discuss U.S. proposals for suspending North Korea's missile-related exports and for limiting its indigenous missile capabilities, and to consider how best to move the process forward in the period ahead.

The two sides agreed to hold the next round of missile talks at the earliest practical date.

Q: The North Koreans are saying there will be talks if the U.S. agrees to compensate North Korea for its political and economic losses?

A: The North Koreans should not be compensated for agreeing to stop conducting activities that they shouldn't be conducting in the first place. Our long standing policy, stemming from the Agreed Framework of 1994 as well as former Secretary of Defense Perry's report, has been to be prepared to pursue a step by step improvement in U.S.-DPRK relations, step by step toward full political and economic normalization with the DPRK. Naturally, such an evolution in the relationship will involve tangible benefits for the DPRK. But we are prepared to pursue this normalization only as the DPRK addresses issues of concern to the United States, and one of the critical issues of concern to the U.S. is North Korea's missile activities. So as it addresses these concerns and deals with the missile question, we are prepared to continue along the path of normalization, and this will involve benefits for North Korea. But we are not prepared to pay cash compensation to North Korea.

Q: All along was it a question of money?

A: Well, I will direct you to the North Koreans to provide their approach, but as far as we are concerned, North Korea should not be receiving cash compensation for stopping what it shouldn't be doing in the first place.

Q: Was there any progress made as far as the U.S. is concerned?

A: We believe the talks were very useful. After a sixteen-month hiatus in the talks, no one was expecting major breakthroughs. But the three days here gave us an opportunity to exchange detailed views on our respective positions, to discuss proposals that the U.S. has put on the table regarding the North Korea's missile exports and its indigenous capabilities, and to begin to lay the groundwork for, hopefully, making significant progress in the period ahead. So we believe these were very worthwhile discussions.

Q: What kind tangible benefit is the U.S. prepared to give?

A: As I mentioned before, as North Korea addresses U.S. concerns, including in the area of missiles, we are prepared to move step by step to full economic normalization. That normalization process will involve various forms of interaction that will be of benefit to the DPRK. It is hard to predict now what precise kinds of interactions will be most useful to North Korea given its current stage of economic development, or what they will be most interested in receiving. We are prepared to discuss this as part of a broad normalization process and as the North Koreans address very seriously our concerns about their missile programs.

Q: Did you recognize any improvement in the North Korean position?

A: Again, after such a lengthy break, we weren't expecting major advances, but our talks were useful. We had a good exploration of the positions of both sides.

Q: Do you see any changes in their attitude, in the way they negotiated?

A: The talks were very business-like and carried out in a very professional manner by the North Korean team, so it is hard to interpret whether that is a reflection of the improving environment between North Korea and many other countries. All I can say is that the North Korean team was very professional and very serious minded.

Q: Could you confirm whether or not the North Koreans have set conditions for the next round of talks?

A: I think that you will have to address your question to them. North Korea's missile program remains of concern to the United States, to U.S allies in North East Asia, and to many other countries throughout the world, and we are determined to continue pursuing these questions with North Korea.

Q: Will you be meeting again this year?

A: As far as we are concerned, we need simply to reach agreement on a time and place. We haven't done that yet. We will do that through diplomatic channels.

Q: Within this year will there be another meeting?

A: Yes, we very much expect to meet this year. We would hope to meet within the next few months.

Q: Does the normalization process include U.S. aid?

A: U.S. assistance would be part of the normal normalization process, but I wouldn't want to prejudge now what kinds of mutually beneficial interactions could take place in the future between the U.S. and the North Koreans.

Q: The North Koreans said a major topic was exports to other countries. Is this true? What about other topics?

A: We understand the North Korean position of wanting to focus on export issues. Export issues are very important. We believe they deserve considerable priority in our discussions, but there are other very important issues, including North Korea's indigenous missile capabilities and the threat those capabilities pose to North Korea's neighbors. And so, yes, we did talk about North Korea's missile exports, but we also talked about North Korea's indigenous missile capabilities.

Q: What did the North Koreans mean when they said "political" and "economic" losses?

A: Again I think they are going to be more authoritative in interpreting that remark. I wouldn't speculate.

Q: The North Korean side says the U.S. has thousands of missiles in the vicinity of North Korea, so the U.S. has no right to demand a freeze on North Korean missiles?

A: Every country has a sovereign right to protect its own national security. The North Koreans are concerned that negotiations about their missile capabilities would jeopardize that security. We believe that our approach to missile restraints with North Korea will be very much in North Korea's overall national interest. We don't believe the kinds of arrangements that we have in mind will undermine North Korean security. And at the same time, we believe that these arrangements would promote overall North Korean national interest, including its economic goals and political goals throughout the world.

Q: Compared to the last round in Pyongyang what has changed?

A: The most significant thing that has changed since March 1999 is that there have been positive developments in the world and in the U.S.-DPRK relationship. We have seen North Korea embark on a policy of expanding contacts with other countries of the world. The U.S. has had several bilateral discussions with the North Koreans, most recently resulting in implementation of sanctions-easing measures against North Korea, and also resulting in reaffirmation of North Korea's moratorium on flight testing of long-range missiles. So that's the most significant thing that has changed -- the environment for these talks --and we hope that this improved environment will be reflected shortly in being able to make concrete progress toward our goals.

Q: But inside the talks, what has changed?

A: I don't want to go into the details of our discussions, but an important factor is the positively evolving environment that we are operating in.

Q: Are you expecting the next round of talks to also be in Kuala Lumpur?

A: We don't know. This has been a very good venue for both delegations. We are grateful to the Malaysian government. I will be seeing senior Malaysian government officials in just a few moments. So it is a very hospitable environment for these talks, but we can't predict where the next round will take place.

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)