State Department Noon Briefing

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2001 1:15 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

Q: North Korea? Have you seen the official commentary, you know,
suggesting unhappiness with the supposed hard-line team now in
Washington and raising the possibility of suspending the moratorium on
tests?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me say a few things about this. Clearly we do remain
concerned about North Korea's missile and nuclear weapons programs,
and we hope that these issues can be dealt with constructively. The
Secretary, as you know, has indicated in his confirmation hearings
that he is very mindful of the work that has been done with North
Korea, and says that we will continue to use that as we form an
overall policy. He said that we will abide and agree to the
commitments made under the Agreed Framework as long as North Korea
does the same. So that's the foundation on which we will base future
policy.

On October 12th, North Korea and the United States did issue a joint
communiqué noting that North Korea "informed the United States that it
will not launch long-range missiles of any kind while talks on the
missile issue continue." We expect North Korea to abide by that
commitment. And the Secretary, as I said, has said that we will abide
by our commitments under the Agreed Framework, and we would expect
North Korea to do the same.

Work on the light-water reactor is moving forward, and we do remain in
touch with North Korea through the New York channel.

Q: They argue that the talks are not continuing. Do you consider talks
to be continuing now, and what plans do you actually have to --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, as I say, we remain in touch with the North Koreans
through the New York channels, but I don't think they asserted that
there was any change in this overall situation at this point.

Q: Do you have any plans for any talks at levels above the New York
channel, which is basically a logistical channel, as I understand it?

MR. BOUCHER: Not at this point, but I think we've made clear that
we're looking at the policy with regard to North Korea, that it's a
policy that will be built on the work that was done before and the
commitments that have been made before.

Q: With regard to the statement, might you accelerate your plans to
have meetings?

MR. BOUCHER: We haven't scheduled anything since they made the
statement, no.

Q: Are you aware of Under - Assistant Secretary-Designate Bolton has
expressed an interest in the - in having some kind of a meeting with
the North Koreans?

MR. BOUCHER: I haven't heard of anything from him on that, but
obviously he wouldn't have a meeting until he were confirmed by the
Senate.

Q: Right, but - okay, you don't know. What about now on the kind of
question of envoys and things like that? Does Charles Kartman --
what's - and Wendy Sherman, those posts - what is the deal with
them?

MR. BOUCHER: What's the deal with them?

Q: Well, it's hard to have talks if you don't have anyone who is going
to be --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, Ambassador Kartman is still working these issues.
He's still working within the East Asia Bureau on issues regarding
Korea and North Korea. He has, in fact, just been traveling to Seoul
and Tokyo to discuss the issues related to the Korean Peninsula Energy
Development Organization with our partners in that organization in
Japan and South Korea. He also took the opportunity there to meet with
officials and others for updates on recent developments related to
North Korea.

Q: When?

MR. BOUCHER: When? The 19th through the 21st when Kartman has been out
there.

Q: Did he have a trilateral meeting during that --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think they had a trilateral meeting, but he was
in Seoul and Tokyo.

Q: This KEDO meetings that he had, is that what you refer to when you
say the work on the light-water reactor is continuing?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, there is work on the light-water reactor, too, but
it's all part of this KEDO organization.

Q: And what about the Counselor, Wendy Sherman?

MR. BOUCHER: There's nothing new on that.

Q: Could I ask you, while pieces are falling into place, two things?
Will Mr. Bolton be the ranking person on arms control, sort of John
Holum's replacement, if not with the same title? And is there
definitive word yet on whether there will be a special mediator for
the Middle East? Because there isn't one --

MR. BOUCHER: Did I somehow not - I mean, I didn't read the exact text
of the White House announcement. I assumed that the job that he was
nominated for was the job that John Holum had.

Q: Well, it's an Under Secretary's job.

Q: Correct. I wasn't sure if it was Under Secretary.

Q: I thought he said Assistant.

MR. BOUCHER: It was described to me as "T", which is what we've always
described as the Under Secretary --

Q: It's hard to confirm a negative, though. The Mideast special
mediator - can we finally be told that you're dispensing - that the
State Department is dispensing with that semiautonomous team?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

....

Q: Okay. And could we go back to Korea for a moment? North Korea is
saying that they're being put under pressure to disarm, to undertake a
unilateral move to disarm, by the United States. Is that true? Does
that reflect any reality as far as you are concerned?

And can you tell us anything about what the nature of the contacts
with the New York channel is at the moment?

MR. BOUCHER: The nature of the contacts of the New York channel are
sort of diplomatic contacts, logistical contacts, discussions of
issues that are already under way and implementation of things that
are under way. I wouldn't describe them as opening up a new policy
front in any way.

As far as unilateral pressure to disarm, certainly we've been looking
for a reduction of tensions on the Peninsula. We've been looking for a
reduction in North Korean missile development and elimination of their
missile exports. But I don't think we would equate that as pressure to
unilaterally disarm. It's something of benefit to all people on the
Peninsula, whether North or South. It's worth pursuing from both
sides.

Q: Following up on Elaine's question, is that something that you've
previously announced or publicly discussed, the fact that US diplomats
have been meeting with North Korean diplomats, if I understand you
correctly?

MR. BOUCHER: We talk about it all the time. The New York channel.

Q: Okay. When was the last time they met?

MR. BOUCHER: The last time they met? I don't know exactly. I think I
remember talking about a meeting about two weeks ago when they came
down here. I assume that we've had discussions since then.

Q: Is that something that the US initiated or was initiated by the
North Koreans?

MR. BOUCHER: It's the ongoing way of communicating with North Korea,
basically. It's been going on for a long, long time in terms of the
way that that's the way we talk to the North Koreans. They don't have
an embassy here; we don't have an embassy in Pyongyang; we talk to
their people in New York.

.....

Q: (Inaudible) if this Russian missile plan would be a violation of
the ABM Treaty?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think at this point we've had time to study it
enough to say one thing or another about it.

Q: Your comments tend to suggest that you don't really see anything
new in their statement, but are you concerned about it? Do you have
anything you can say about the timing of it or how you interpret the
fact that it happened?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

Q: You have no conclusions? You're not concerned by it? I mean,
they're talking about not --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we regularly do commentary here on fill-in
statements and articles in that fashion. They're sort of why and the
motivation and the - you know, we'll tell you what our position is.
I'm happy to do that.

Q: Okay. I'm asking if you're concerned about the fact that North
Korea is saying it's not going to observe indefinitely its moratorium
on testing long-range missiles.

MR. BOUCHER: A missile launch by North Korea would certainly be a very
serious matter, but we also note North Korea's willingness, as stated
in that commentary, to continue to discuss missile issues and the
Agreed Framework. Those are obviously part of the subjects we're
working on. And as I mentioned before, the Secretary said that we were
mindful of the work that had been done; we would abide by the Agreed
Framework; and we would be looking at our policy from that point.

Q: The agreement in October was never - I mean, although the United
States might want it to be an indefinite suspension or moratorium, I
mean it's only --

MR. BOUCHER: I read the language. "As long as the missile talks
continue."

Q: I mean, it never said indefinitely.

MR. BOUCHER: No.

Q: I was just wondering, listening to tonal changes, or lack thereof,
I wondered if --

MR. BOUCHER: It's the same dull and boring tone, Barry.

Q: No, is there - you don't hear the other side any more. The other
side of the coin isn't flipped, it strikes me, since Mr. Bush was
elected. The hope that you can improve relations with North Korea, the
hope that somehow you could establish your relationship with Iran. Are
those hopes harbored by this new Administration as they were by the
previous one, even while you're looking for North Korea to behave, for
Iran to behave? Is there another side to this anymore, or is it a
matter of policing the relationship, or lack of relationship, with bad
ones?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll take Option D, none of the above. I think we've been
quite clear from here - the Secretary has been quite clear in his
testimony and elsewhere - that we do look forward to a step-by-step
process where we can see changes in North Korean behavior and where we
can improve the relationship with North Korea. That's been a
fundamental premise.

But how exactly we go about that is something that we're looking at,
so we don't have a grand vision or a new statement of that to give,
but the fundament framework, the fundamental method of proceeding,
have been reiterated in this Administration.

On the issue of Iran, again, you know, sort of we've had things to say
about it. I don't have a brand new policy for you at this stage.