*EPF104 08/04/2003
Transcript: Bolton Cites "Encouraging Signs" for N. Korea Talks
(Assistant Secretary's Tokyo press conference August 1) (3740)

North Korea is now giving "encouraging signs" that it may be willing "to sit down at a table" for multilateral talks regarding its weapons programs, says John Bolton, under secretary of State for arms control and international security.

Speaking to the press in Tokyo August 1, Bolton said logistics for the hoped-for talks have yet to be worked out. But he emphasized that "the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantling of North Korea's nuclear weapons program has verification as its centerpiece."

Bolton was in Tokyo for "very extensive consultations" with senior Japanese officials on a wide variety of security issues, including arms control, non-proliferation issues and North Korea.

He emphasized that all issues revolving around the North Korean weapons proliferation must be resolved in the context of the multilateral negotiations.

"The threat posed by North Korea affects South Korea, Japan and the United States differently," Bolton acknowledged. "But I think what you can say unequivocally in this case is that even given our different circumstances, we have over the past months, and indeed years in the Bush administration here, coordinated our policies very closely."

With China as the intermediary, he said, South Korea, Japan, and the United States "will be engaged in very intense coordination" in urging North Korea to peacefully resolve the region's concerns over its weapons programs.

Following is a transcript of the press conference:

(begin transcript)

PRESS CONFERENCE WITH UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE
JOHN BOLTON
US EMBASSY AUDITORIUM
FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 2003
5:15PM

EMBASSY SPOKESPERSON: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for waiting. Under Secretary Bolton will make a brief statement and then he will take your questions. Please keep your questions nice and short. Give your name and your affiliations when asking your questions. We have about 25 minutes.

U/S BOLTON: Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming today. It's a pleasure to be here in Tokyo. I've had very extensive consultations during the day with a number of the Senior Officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Abe. I have a couple of other meetings to go. We have discussed a wide range of issues in my portfolio. We had a meeting today -- another meeting of the U.S.-Japan Commission on Arms Control, Non-Proliferation, Disarmament, and Verification. In the course of that we talked about a wide range of arms control and non-proliferation issues. In that context, and in many of the other meetings that I had with other officials, we talked about President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, the progress that we have been making on that, and on particular proliferation problems such as Iran and North Korea. Why don't I stop there and I'd be pleased to try and answer your questions.

QUESTION: I'm Sato Suzuki with TV Asahi of Japan. Mr. Secretary, let me first congratulate you on the very specific result that you have produced in the course of your current trip -- that is North Korea has finally agreed to the multilateral talks that you have been proposing. Now, are you, at the end of your current trip, are you now more optimistic that North Korea will dismantle their nuclear development program completely, irreversibly, and verifiably, or are you still convinced that you will have to continue to exert pressure on them -- the North Koreans -- economically, politically, and militarily, and that the best way to achieve our goal is a regime change in Pyongyang?

U/S BOLTON: Well, I think a final announcement of what exactly we've heard and the specifics of the North Korean response to what Secretary Powell and Dr. Rice presented to the Chinese almost two weeks ago now in Washington really will come from Washington later in the day today. But as I think we said yesterday, what we've heard so far -- and we don't have specifics really -- but what we've heard so far is very encouraging in terms of the acceptance of the American proposal on multilateral talks. Now having achieved the objective of convening these multilateral talks obviously the very, very hard work of the substantive discussion in a multilateral context now begins. I would simply recall that our objective remains the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of the North Korean nuclear weapons program.

QUESTION: Rebecca MacKinnon with CNN. Within the 24 hour period, you delivered a very blistering, strong, personal attack against North Korea's leadership as other members of the Bush administration apparently were working on bring together this deal, or this agreement with North Korea to hold the six-party multilateral talks. Was this part of a coordinated good cop, bad cop strategy going on or is it perhaps an indication - as some people in the region suspect - of lack of coordination in Bush administration over North Korea policy?

U/S BOLTON: Let me tell you that our coordination on North Korea policy is as intense as our coordination on our policy in any area that I have seen over the years. Believe me, the speech that I gave was fully cleared in ways that only those who understand the USG clearance process can fully understand. I think that the important consequence here is that we have received such encouraging news about the prospects for multilateral discussions. As I said, I think that it is appropriate for a definitive word to come on that from Washington. But everything that I have heard today in various conversations with our Japanese colleagues reinforces what we thought and what we said through Richard Boucher in Washington yesterday - that we think there is strong reason to be encouraged.

QUESTION: Hi, I'm with NHK - Ichinose. Now that North Korea seems to be accepting these multilateral talks, so when and how do you think these multilateral talks will take place and is it going to be preceded by three lateral talks?

U/S BOLTON: I think that the specifics remain to be; we need to hear the specifics of the North Korean response. Some of the precise logistical questions also remain to be worked out. We've been in consultation with the Chinese today. I am sure that will continue from that perspective since they have taken the lead in these discussions that have led to this possibility of the multilateral talks at six commencing. Obviously we need very close coordination and preparation with the Government of South Korea and the GOJ and we talked about some of those kinds of issues today. For example on the question of a verification regime that would be required, the formula that we have used -- that I repeated just a minute ago -- the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantling of North Korea's nuclear weapons program has verification as its centerpiece. I think that's one of the examples of the discussions - policy discussions -- that we'll be having. This is still very early. Much of this remains to be worked out and there's much consultation with our friends and allies that remains ahead.

QUESTION: Richard Lloyd Perry of The Times. Does Kim Jong-il's government in North Korea have a right to exist?

U/S BOLTON: I think the government does exist. In the great world of characterization of foreign policy species within the American government, I'm a realist and that's the basis on which we and everyone else in the region and the world are dealing with it.

QUESTION: Hiroyuki Abe, Fuji TV. During the multilateral talks we are afraid that the problem of the abduction and the nuclear program will be completely separated. How could we be the problem of the abduction that (inaudible) in the multilateral talks?

U/S BOLTON: You know the subject of the North Korean abduction of Japanese and South Korean citizens is obviously something of enormous domestic political concern here in Japan and in South Korea. And it's of concern to the United States as well, that's why I raised it in the speech in Seoul yesterday. Precisely how that issue is addressed in the multilateral context, I think is however more appropriately addressed to the government here and the government in Seoul. In Japan's case, what they intend to do, whether they intend to raise it, how they intend to raise it in the multilateral context or elsewhere I think really is for them to speak to.

QUESTION: Thanks, my name is Khaldon Azhari of PETRA - the news agency of Jordan. I'm sorry, I don't ask about North Korea. What is the American official policy towards the Israeli suspected arms of mass destruction? There are many Arabic governments that have expressed concern about this. Do you feel that it should be dealt with in the same way you dealt with Iraq and North Korea?

U/S BOLTON: I think that we've been dealing with Iraq and North Korea in different ways. The point that we've made is that each case needs to be handled on its' own merits and that has been our policy. In connection with the question that you asked at the outset, our view has been for some time that we would like to see the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and that is still our policy at present.

QUESTION: Yasushi Fuji from Kyodo News. Mr. Secretary, is it your understanding that the North Koreans have accepted six-party multilateral talks without any conditions. In the past we have seen acceptance in general and North Koreans putting conditions which could hinder the actual meetings to take place. Are there any details still to be worked out such as non-aggression policy commitment, etc.?

U/S BOLTON: I wouldn't call that a detail, but certainly the point that you raise in the question of the exact nature of the North Korean response is important. We don't have, I don't have right now all of the details and that is why I don't think it is appropriate for me to comment definitively. I think that will be up to Washington as more information is made available there and the precise content of the North Korean response is known and considered, but what we do know we find very encouraging.

QUESTION: James Sims with Dow Jones. Just a couple of questions. One is on the PSI initiative. What sort of discussions did you have with the Japanese regarding this and what sort of role might they play? Also has there been any progress on the UN Security Council Resolution?

U/S BOLTON: Security Council Resolution on which subject?

QUESTION: On North Korea.

U/S BOLTON: On the Proliferation Security Initiative we had very extensive discussions today as I think all of you probably know, Japan has been a participant in the PSI negotiations from the outset - one of the 11 member nations. They participated in Madrid and Brisbane and of course will be in Paris in the first weekend in September when our next plenary meetings will take place. I think Japan's participation and everything that I learned today about their views of PSI as it evolves has been extremely positive and their role as a founding member and active participant in our discussions is quite important.

One of the first things that we said in Madrid was that PSI was a global effort with global reach and I want to underline that because although in this part of the world, perhaps understandably, a lot of the attention has been devoted to PSI activities in connection with North Korea -- and that is quite important -- PSI's something that involves the worldwide threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I think the test of PSI is it's operational capability. This is not an ongoing seminar on non-proliferation issues. This is a group of 11 nations that have committed themselves to the interdiction of international shipments of WMD production facilities and their components. The purpose of our various discussions in which Japan has actively and constructively participated is to move from the declaration of intention that President Bush made in Krakow, Poland on May 31 and that we followed through in Madrid to operational capabilities. Japan's role there has been extremely important.

In terms of the Security Council as we said several times, the role of the Security Council, obviously charged by the UN Charter with preservation of international peace and security, gives it an important role in the North Korean matter and in other proliferation questions. How exactly the council functions in that regard obviously depends on the pace of events and other forums including the possibility now of true multilateral negotiations in the Beijing track. I think, given the close cooperation we've had with China, that we are going to see how events in the Beijing track proceed. This is -- not to repeat my conversations with your colleagues in Seoul yesterday -- this is something I think on which the government of the Republic of Korea, the GOJ and the government of the United States see pretty much eye-to-eye.

QUESTION: Amy Vickers from Voice of America. You just talked a little bit about Japan, South Korea and the U.S. seeing eye-to-eye on the U.N. Security Council role. What about on North Korea in general? Is there unity? Would you describe it as unity, in terms of the viewpoint? And the second question is ... let me leave it at that.

U/S BOLTON: The threat posed by North Korea affects South Korea, Japan and the United States differently. We live in different parts of the world. We have different interests on a regional and global basis, and understandably therefore, our citizens and our governments have different aspects of North Korea's behavior that affect them. But I think what you can say unequivocally in this case is that even given our different circumstances, we have over the past months, and indeed years in the Bush administration here, coordinated our policies very closely, and I think that this has been important, and if in fact we are on the verge of six-party multilateral talks, I think that coordination, not just on the process but on the substance of our policies, becomes even more important, so that was a theme that I would say was reflected in every conversation that I had here in Tokyo today and in Seoul earlier in the week. So my guess is - it's not a guess; it's a pretty firm belief - that we will be engaged in very intense coordination, and I think the resolve that the governments showed, all three of them, in telling the North Koreans through the Chinese that we wanted multilateral talks and that there wouldn't be substantive negotiation until South Korea and Japan were in the room and at the table, has paid off. So I think that's a very encouraging sign.

QUESTION: Hello. I'm Tanoshima from Spanish News Agency. Now that North Korea has apparently accepted the six-way talks, will the North Korean regime get any security guarantee as proposed recently by South Korea? Thank you.

U/S BOLTON: Well, all that we think has happened here is that we've gotten encouraging signs that the North Koreans have agreed to sit down at a table with five other countries, and I don't think agreeing to what is, I think, a very common sense and logical way of dealing with the threat posed by the nuclear weapons program should lead to substantive changes in policy. I think we've been very clear, and I think Secretary Powell has said on several occasions, as has President Bush more directly: We have no intent to invade North Korea, and as Secretary Powell put it, we can find a way to put that on a piece of paper. But that's going to be -- as with all of the other issues raised by the North Korean weapons program -- that's going to be resolved in the context of the multilateral negotiations, if and when they begin.

QUESTION: Sorry to bother you once again. I have a follow-up on the time-line. How long can the U.S. wait until these multilateral talks start, and how does it relate to your action at the United Nations Security Council?

U/S BOLTON: Well, I think the question of timing is something that we don't really have details on yet. I think we expect to hear further from China, which has taken the lead responsibility in trying to organize this, but I expect that, if not today then within days, that these events will be worked out. And again, I would just say that Washington will issue the definitive statement on that from the American perspective. I think that to the extent we see the prospect of multilateral talks moving ahead, that if that proceeds effectively, that lessens the need for action in the Security Council. As I mentioned a moment ago, we have seen from the beginning, the Beijing track and the Security Council track as being complementary to one another: that if progress were blocked in one track, it should be possible to proceed in the other. So not wanting to prejudge exactly where we stand on the multilateral track, if that's making progress, then you don't need to make progress on both tracks at the same time.

QUESTION: To follow up further on the time frame: On the other hand, once the talks get going, are you expecting this is a process that could take years? How slowly or quickly are U.S. expectations...or how much patience does the U.S. have once the talks get going, in terms of how long it's going to take to really get a deal and make progress, especially when at the same time, the North Koreans claim, at least, that they are reprocessing their nuclear fuel rods and so forth? So how urgent is it, not only to talk, but to see concrete progress - and if there isn't concrete progress, say within a year or so, what is that going to mean?

U/S BOLTON: In terms of patience, I've been working on patience for years (laughs). I think that it's important to give the diplomatic process time to move ahead, and that's why we were willing to have these conversations, conducted really by the Chinese, proceed in the way that they did. I think that it's impossible to predict -- and I wouldn't even want to begin to try to estimate what the multiparty talks might look like, if and when they begin. But I don't think that our consideration of the timing of those talks will drive or affect our ongoing, continuing concern for the two nuclear weapons programs that the North Koreans are conducting -- not just the question of whether they're reprocessing plutonium from the spent fuel rods at Yongbyon, but also the extent to which their uranium enrichment program has also been proceeding. So the concern of what they're capabilities are, what the extent of weapons-grade material that they have - all of that is very much on our minds, and I think we're trying to watch both fronts simultaneously. But I think predictions or anything that one could construe as deadlines or anything like that, is just not possible or desirable at this point.

QUESTION: I wanted to follow up on my earlier question. The language of your speech yesterday was very striking. You referred to Kim Jong-il personally as a dictator. You described his country in one place as a hell. And President Bush as well, in the past, has spoken of his personal loathing for Kim Jong-il. Does this, then, imply that Kim Jong-il's government lacks moral legitimacy? Because that's the impression that some people have had. That may be the impression the North Koreans have had, and if they have received that impression, it may affect the trust they are willing to place in any guarantees that you may give them. Does it have moral legitimacy or not?

U/S BOLTON: Well, I think that's a question that if I were in a think tank again, I would be prepared to address at length, but what I will say here is that in any multilateral negotiations that may proceed, we have a question of what the legitimacy of promises made by North Korea would be, based on their performance and violation of the 1994 Agreed Framework has shown, and it's one reason why, as I mentioned earlier, the question of verification and compliance has been central to the American position on the requirement that North Korea dismantle its nuclear weapons program. The American position for decades - for decades - has been the peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula, presumably in a democratic form, and that remains the policy.

QUESTION: Satoru Suzuki with TV Asahi again. You said that the abduction cases should be addressed by the Japanese and South Korean governments separately from the multilateral talks. Now ...

U/S BOLTON: I didn't say separately. I said the question of how those issues are to be raised, I think, really rests with those governments. I'm sure we will consult with them, but I don't feel, at the moment anyway, standing here, that I should be suggesting to them how they may want to proceed. I'm sure we'll talk about it further later.

QUESTION: OK. North Korea has reportedly offered to let five children of the Japanese abductees come to Japan and see their parents in Japan, most likely in return for Japan's economic and food assistance. Is that the kind of deal Japan could make with the North Koreans which is acceptable to you?

U/S BOLTON: Well, I don't think it's a question of what's acceptable to us, and I can assure you, knowing the extraordinary sensitivity of the abduction question here in Japan and the enormous public attention that has been devoted to it, I don't think it's appropriate for me as an American official to get into the middle of that. But I think American sympathy is entirely with the Japanese families and with the government in the efforts that they have been making to take care of this, what is for many Americans is an extraordinarily hard-to-believe story, that the government of North Korea kidnapped Japanese citizens, kidnapped South Korean citizens, but beyond that, as I say, in terms of how the government of Japan handles that question, is really for the government here to decide.

OK, thank you very much.

(end transcript)

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

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents