East Asia and the Pacific http://www.state.gov/rss/channels/eap.xml East Asia and the Pacific en-us Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:00:00 EDTThu, 24 Jul 2008 16:00:00 EDT 15 East Asia and the Pacific: Roundtable With Press http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/07/107433.htm http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/07/107433.htm

Roundtable With Press

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Singapore
July 24, 2008

SECRETARY RICE: All right.

MR. MCCORMACK: I thought what we would do, everybody, is start with the our -- some of our local journalists, and then we’ll get some of the imports after that. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Imports? (Laughter.) Imports and --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I’ll leave it with imports.

SECRETARY RICE: Imports.

MR. MCCORMACK: Is there somebody who’d like to start off with a question?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, who’d like to start?

QUESTION: Let me start question.

SECRETARY RICE: All right.

QUESTION: (Inaudible). I wonder the relation – I mean, the – what your stand now between Thai and Cambodia coming to Europe. (Inaudible.) I don’t know if this premature for the two countries to discuss in the UNSC and I want to hear from you what your – timing.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, well, thanks a lot. It is something that has been a subject of discussion. We’re concerned about it, and there needs to be a way to resolve it peacefully. My understanding is that there is an effort to -- it hits by the bilateral discussions, but that ASEAN is also taking a role of watching and trying to help where necessary. We’ll continue to consult with the regional states. It hasn’t really been taken up before the Council yet, although there’s been a potential request passed. But I made very clear to all of my ASEAN colleagues that the United States will be very much interested in and, in fact, guided by the regional assessment of what needs to be done here.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY RICE: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY RICE: Well, it -- right now, because there are bilateral discussions going on and because ASEAN is taking a role. But again, we’re going to be guided very heavily by the views of the countries in this region. And I’ve had a chance to raise it with several of them.

QUESTION: I have two questions for you, actually. The first one is, what is the U.S. Government response to the recently released report by the Commission of Truth and Friendship between Indonesia and Timor-Leste? It concluded that Indonesian military and police committed a systematic – gross violations of human rights. Do you think (inaudible) should be held responsible?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I was heartened by the rapid response of the Government of Indonesia and by President Yudhoyono, who immediately -- I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but talked about the deep pain that it caused him to have this report, promised that the Government of Indonesia would be, certainly, implementing the recommendations of the report. And so this is a good democratic government that has a strong record of wanting to work and to be responsive on human rights issues. 

We’ve known for a long time that there are concerns about reform in the military, need for reform in the military. The United States has been active in helping and to -- encouraging that agenda with Indonesia. I do believe that the military-to-military contacts which the United States restarted some three, three and a half years ago with Indonesia, are helpful in what has been -- what is a not always smooth transition from military rule to civilian rule in a democratic society.

So we’re going to continue to work closely with the Indonesian Government. We will help in any way that we can. But I’m content to leave to the Indonesians and Timor-Leste, which put together the commission, how to carry out its recommendations. But I think the spirit in which it’s been received and the seriousness with which the government takes the report and its recommendations is a --

QUESTION: Do you think that an international court could be an outlet for this issue?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I can’t speak to that. I think the recommendations of the commission, I’m sure, will be implemented. And that the government and -- both governments will find a means to make certain that justice is done.

QUESTION: Okay. One more question.

SECRETARY RICE: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Are your government and Indonesia in talks about the Naval Medical Research Operations in Indonesia? And your government insists that all the American crew be given diplomatic immunity and privileges and --

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the United States has standard practices about this worldwide. And so we will have to decide – and we’ll, with standard practices – well - look, we and Indonesia are good friends, and we’ll work this out.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Good morning.

SECRETARY RICE: Good morning.

QUESTION: I’m from Malaysia, so I hopefully (inaudible), I support this relations, (inaudible) sense that the U.S. has been interfering with domestic criminal case of -- from Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. So Washington seems to make (inaudible) remarks against the case. To us, Malaysia – it’s just local, domestic, criminal case.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the United States has long spoken and will continue to speak about cases that we think need to be thought about in terms of the political circumstances. We are always going to speak about human rights cases, about political cases. But again, we do so in a spirit of respect for Malaysia, and it’s -- the United States doesn’t recognize this very firm barrier, but there are certain things that are simply internal affairs when a case of this kind comes up. But we’re going to continue to work with the Malaysian Government. And I’m going to see my Malaysian counterpart in a little bit.

QUESTION: But Mr. Anwar is going through all the local due process of law. 

SECRETARY RICE: And we look for -- one of the things that we’ve said is that we want to see a transparent and -- rule of law to be completely followed here, and that part of the comfort level or the confidence that states need to bring to the international system is that their systems are -- their judicial systems are, indeed, responsive to rule of law and transparent and fair. That’s been (inaudible).

QUESTION: But you must remember the -- our police and our --

SECRETARY RICE: I think I’ve answered your question.

QUESTION: Majority of them are trained by the Americans and the British.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

SECRETARY RICE: No, no -- but the evenhanded application of rule of law is very important.

QUESTION: Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: We are from the Straits Times, in Singapore.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: I just have two questions. Number one is, do you have anything arising from your discussions with our Foreign Minister George Yeo? And number two is whether the U.S. intends to institutionalize the Six-Party Talks and make anything that arrives from it into a more formal system?

SECRETARY RICE: Mm-hmm. On the second point, the September 2005 agreement foreshadows the idea of a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism. I think we -- the Russians are the co -- are the chairs of the working group that is working on that issue. And we had some discussion yesterday about the principles. It wasn’t a very long meeting, so we didn’t have an in-depth discussion, but I think it’s something that, at an appropriate time, the parties will want to establish. 

Right now, the work of denuclearization takes precedence. And certainly, it’s the most urgent work, being able to do it verifiably and to do it as rapidly as possible. But there’s a great deal of interest among the parties. I think one of the points that was made was that we’ve developed a kind of habits or patterns of cooperation about an issue that really could have pulled the parties apart. And I don’t mean here the North Koreans. I mean the -- when you think about the kind of variable interests of China and South Korea and Japan and the United States and Russia concerning the North Korean nuclear program, to have a forum in which this has become a reason for cooperation rather than for conflict, is pretty rare. And so I think we will want to build on that, but there -- it’s going to have to come at an appropriate time. 

As to my meeting with my colleague, George Yeo, it was a very good meeting. We -- you know, we have an excellent relationship with Singapore. We talked mostly, frankly, about the region and about the ASEAN agenda, because I wanted to make sure that I fully understood what was on the minds of my colleagues. It was a meeting that took place just shortly before I had the U.S.-ASEAN ministerial. And so we talked principally about regional issues, and about Burma and about the Thai-Cambodia issue. I asked for some – about them and --

QUESTION: Can I ask just one more follow-up question?

SECRETARY RICE: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: P – our PM, on the first day of the meetings here, was talking about ASEAN and a possibility of it losing relevance in the region. And I wanted to see, from an American view, whether you concur or you (inaudible) view on that issue?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, any organization, if it doesn’t keep moving forward, can be subject to losing relevance. But I have the sense, at least, that ASEAN is an organization that has an agenda for moving forward. I know of some of the larger-scale plans on integration and the difficulty that those may – some of that may encounter. But for instance, we had an interesting discussion yesterday about the full integration of the new members, which come in at lower standards of economic development and prosperity, because there is a concern, I think, that some of the countries that are new to ASEAN – you don’t want, in effect, two speeds within ASEAN. This is a debate that the European Union, of course, went through. They put together funding to be able to support the integration of states that are new members. I think one of the real miracles, for instance, was what happened with Ireland, where the EU support for Ireland brought it very quickly up to the level of the other EU states.

And I know that ASEAN is looking at questions like that. One very interesting suggestion was made by my colleague from Laos, who suggested that one of the problems is that the new states’ English language capacity among the diplomatic corps, among the civil servant corps, is not as strong as some of the longer standing members. And we even talked about whether the United States might want to participate in trying to help on capacity-building. So I think there are a lot of ways for ASEAN to have a very active future, but any organization has to keep moving forward. And to the degree that there are problems like Burma, I think that if those problems are not ultimately resolved with a Burma moving closer to the general values that are there in the ASEAN charter, then you really are going to have problems for the organization. And so it’s not an organization without challenge, but I think it’s an organization that’s got a very, very good future, and certainly, the United States has been very active in our own engagement.

QUESTION: Madame, before moving into the other region, just a point on Burma, I read somewhere that you said earlier that you would put pressure to ASEAN to do more about Burma. Have you done or -- what about that?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we had a good discussion on Burma. Of course, the Burmese Foreign Minister was there. The ASEAN charter aspires to rule of law, human rights, development of more pluralistic political systems, integration into the international community states. And Burma is out of step, badly, I would say. And when you have a situation that you’ve had with the cyclones, where days and weeks go by with an international community sitting literally off-shore -- France, Great Britain, the United States sitting off-shore, willing and ready to help, but the Junta refusing to let people in need be helped, you wonder what – how does this – how can the international community stand by and let that happen?

Now I give a lot of credit to ASEAN for developing the mechanism for assistance and for speeding up assistance after a period of time and becoming a kind of international clearinghouse, if you will, for contact with Burma, and that was a useful role. But it should never have happened in the first place. And now the question is, given the slight opening that this has provided, is there a way to move Burma to a political track that would finally make something of what is right now a kind of mockery, which is this roadmap to democracy which is going nowhere, and would it be possible for regional states and neighbors to press the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi, to allow real opposition to get on a pact.

So that’s what I meant by pressing to do more and we had a good discussion.

MR. MCCORMACK: All right, guys.

QUESTION: On Korea, on your – (laughter) --

SECRETARY RICE: Now all the good questions are (inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK: Now the move to a parallel universe. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Or is it the real one? But on the – on your meeting yesterday with your colleagues in the Six Parties, this was the first time the ministers have met since the Six-Party Talks began in 2003, and now the issue is verification. You know, it’s political season in Washington, there are a lot of people saying a lot of things about this protocol that you’re working on, that you proposed to the North Koreans. 

Could you address the issue of how strong this protocol will be? Could you speak to what you’re going to leave? It seems you’ll have – this will have to also be continued by the next administration, and so there are people concerned that there might be some holes in this protocol entrance of being able to really verify whether the North Koreans (inaudible).

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, it is a protocol that we have shared with and worked some with our other Six-Party colleagues – or Five Party colleagues. And the meeting was about verification yesterday, overwhelmingly. And I think you will note that the – that Minister Yang noted that the discussion about acceleration was about the verification protocol. And so I don’t think the North Koreans left with any illusions about the fact that the ball was in their court and that everybody believes they have got to respond and respond positively on verification.

We will try to do several things. The first is that this declaration has left some questions. And we have to have a way to add to those questions, we have to have a way to – nobody is going to trust the North Korean number on how much plutonium they need. Fortunately, there are very good, tried and true, as one of my colleagues called it yesterday, international – internationally recognized methods to verify the number of kilograms of plutonium make.

So this will be – will have to be specific. It’ll have to have specific measures. It’ll have to have means for access. And it will also have to have means to continue this process as new information becomes available. One of the facts is that in this process, thus far, we have learned more about some activities, questionable activities in North Korea than, frankly, we had learned before we engaged in this process. And so I – this will be a strong protocol, that all of the parties yesterday talked about a rigorous protocol, talked about one that is to international standards. So I think we’ll – we have to have a protocol that allows us to know what has happened there and is – still has to be.

Now we have to recognize that the achievement thus far of essentially setting back, if not ending the North Korean capacity for the production of plutonium is important. It may have been an oil reactor, but it was by no means obsolete, given that it was making plutonium up till very recently. And given the proliferation risks of plutonium in the hands of a opaque, nontransparent regime, particularly in ever larger quantities, it is very important to shut down that capability. And having done it now with four other parties who have the right mix of incentives and disincentives, I think it makes it more difficult for the North Koreans to start reversing themselves. 

But the ball is in the North Koreans’ court and we’ll see what they come up with.

QUESTION: And in the 45 days, just to follow --

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- on this, the President said that the terrorism list – he notified Congress there is a --

SECRETARY RICE: Right.

QUESTION: -- 45-day period.

SECRETARY RICE: There’s a 45-day notification period, which is a minimum notification period. I think it should be very well understood that unless we’re satisfied that we can verify the declaration, we’ve been very clear that we’re taking that into our assessment of when to go forward.

QUESTION: But does that mean that you want the protocol to be agreed on and accepted by the North Koreans by this 45-day deadline?

SECRETARY RICE: Nick, as I said, it’s a 45-day minimum notification, but we certainly expect, and we’re watching very carefully, to see whether or not North Korea is going to come through on the essential issue, which is verification, and to act accordingly.

QUESTION: One question on --

MR. MCCORMACK: Nicholas, we got five minutes left, so why don’t we give some of your colleagues --

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, (inaudible).

QUESTION: My question wasn’t right. No, I meant are you still going to delist North Korea before it (inaudible) the protocol? That’s my question.

SECRETARY RICE: As I said, we will have to know about the prospects for verifying this declaration, because the President’s made very clear we’re going to take that into account before we make any decisions. But I just wanted to clarify it’s a 45-day minimum notification, not maximum.

QUESTION: You’ve said that you’d be looking for a very strong protocol on all the parties. You’re talking about this vigorous protocol. Could you be a little bit more specific as to what this protocol would entail, the IAEA inspectors, how many of them on the ground doing what?

SECRETARY RICE: No. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Could you be so specific as to what --

SECRETARY RICE: Sue, a lot of this is still to be worked out. But first of all, I expect that there would be – and we’ll have to work out what IAEA – you all remember that this is verification under a Six-Party framework, and the verification of the disablement was actually carried out by the United States, Russia and China. So I can’t get into details about it, but it’ll be – I think the best line that was used about it was it has to be an internationally acceptable standard.

QUESTION: I have an --

MR. MCCORMACK: Guys, we can do some pictures right now.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: I have an extremely easy question, which is --

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: Can you give us five minutes on the plane to Perth to ask because I don’t – I’ll let someone else go.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: I have a non-trip question --

SECRETARY RICE: A non-trip question?

QUESTION: -- that I would like to ask.

SECRETARY RICE: All right.

QUESTION: Yes, is that possible, Sean? Can we do that?

SECRETARY RICE: I’m going to have the Australian Foreign Minister with me.

QUESTION: Well, we would do both.

SECRETARY RICE: Okay. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Just like with Miliband.

SECRETARY RICE: Okay, yes. All right, all right, we’ll – yeah.

QUESTION: Okay?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: So then I can --

SECRETARY RICE:  Yeah.

QUESTION: I don’t want to take away from these guys. (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I’ll ask about Foreign Minister Lavrov and Foreign Minister Yang. Did you discuss any sanctions regime for Iran during your talks here, given the response you’ve seen so far?

SECRETARY RICE: We’ve reviewed that Iran has to come forward in two weeks and that everybody’s committed to both tracks. But frankly, in this context, we spent a good deal more time preparing for the Six-Party bilateral. And the Foreign Minister and I were also – you know, we also had a number of other issues that we needed to talk about, including some work that we’re continuing to do on the – on Georgia, on the 123 Agreement, I’ll – you know, so big agenda with Russia.

QUESTION: So Foreign Minister Lavrov didn’t come out and say, yes, I’m – you know, I’m with you and your comments on let’s go to the Council if they don’t make this --

SECRETARY RICE: I didn’t ask him that.

QUESTION: No?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, I didn’t ask him that. You know, as I said, we didn’t – we didn’t need to have a very long discussion on Iran. Everybody knows what the Iranians did and we’ll see what they do in two weeks. And I’m pretty confident that people are not prepared to let them stall.

MR. MCCORMACK: All right?

QUESTION: You haven’t (inaudible)?

QUESTION: Could you (inaudible)?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, it’s a tremendous, tremendous step forward for Serbia and its European identity. It’s tremendous – it’s kind of hard to use the word, “victory,” given the harshness of what he’s responsible for. But for all of the people who perished as a result of his policies and – it’s – I hope it provides an opportunity for some healing from those scars.

The Balkans is trying to – the whole region is trying to overcome this – a long, long history that has been (inaudible) unkind, but one that, as most of Europe was moving forward and after the Cold War, the Balkans, of course, fell into extreme darkness. And this is an end to one more step in an end to that great nightmare. We have been active with the Europeans and with others for years in helping to cooperate to try to locate him. And it showed tremendous will on the part of this new Serbian Government. And I just hope that there will be accelerated efforts to reach out to this Serbian Government. I think the European accession – European association agreement is a good step. 

We, of course, some time ago, even before this government, made Partnership for Peace available for NATO. But the Serbs are making a step forward and closing an ugly chapter in their past. And I just hope that (inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK: All right, guys?

SECRETARY RICE: All right. Thank you. Thanks very much.


2008/T21-6


Released on July 24, 2008

   ]]> Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:21:09 EDT East Asia and the Pacific: Remarks With Traveling Press http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/107415.htm http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/107415.htm

Remarks With Traveling Press

Christopher R. Hill, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Shangri-la Hotel
Singapore
July 23, 2008

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Okay. So the Secretary already briefed. Did you catch that?

QUESTION: Yeah.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Okay. So what am I supposed to do?

QUESTION: Tell us that she’s completely wrong. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, could you give us a little bit more? I mean --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I mean, she really --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: She made it clear there was no timeline for the verification protocol and --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: You told us yesterday that you thought that – that at this meeting, you would – hopefully, you would get some indication about how serious the North Koreans are and --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, I mean --

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Frankly, it was – I mean, it was a general discussion. I think that’s the first thing to understand. The ministers did not get into the weeds, by any means. But it was a good discussion. The – I would say they talked about a number of issues, but I would say the main issue was about verification and the fact that now that the – that the North Koreans have put forward a declaration, and now it’s time to put together a verification protocol. And we’d like to get that done as soon as possible.

I would say there was a broad understanding about that. The North Korean didn’t bring up the issue of – you know, that everybody has obligations that need to be verified. But there was a consensus around the table that while everybody has obligations that need to be met, the issue right now is to put together a verification protocol for the North Korean declaration.

QUESTION: Could you talk a little bit about the sort of atmosphere among the – did Rice directly engage the North Koreans several times? How did it work?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: There was – they started – they did – the Chinese started. Yang Jiechi gave a kind of long – I won’t say long, but, I mean, you know, an introduction, maybe 10 minutes, something like that. And then he went around the table. Secretary Rice spoke second.

QUESTION: What did she say?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: The – she spoke about the importance of getting a verification protocol. That was her main, main point. She made the point that while a lot of people have obligations, we’re all prepared to fulfill our obligations, but what we’re trying to do now is to get a verification protocol. Then the South Korean spoke and he had a similar theme.

Let’s see, South Korean then – so Chinese, American, South Korean – I think the North Korean spoke next and he read from a prepared statement and made the point that he would – that North Korea would fulfill its obligations and fulfill the terms of the September ’05 statement. He referred specifically to September ’05, which calls for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The – then the Russian spoke, and again, he wanted to make clear that what we’re really trying to do is verify the declaration, and said as for, you know, making sure that everybody follows their obligations, yes, that’s true, but they’re – the purpose of verification is to address the declaration. And let me see, I think the Japanese spoke sixth --

QUESTION: About the abduction issue?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Japanese raised the abduction issue. Secretary Rice also spoke to that issue.

QUESTION: But apparently, she spoke to that at the end.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah.

QUESTION: She pulled – at a pull-aside, right? Not in the open session, is that correct?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think she spoke to the need to try to – that countries should try to address their outstanding bilateral issues. And I think she referred, in particular, to the DPRK-Japan relationship.

QUESTION: Was there any sort of chemistry between Rice and the North Korean? I mean, did they, you know, engage in –

QUESTION: They’re getting married next week. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: -- very interactive conversation? I mean – or was it just a formal --

QUESTION: You still think my story was dumb?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: (Inaudible.) No, I take it back, Nick. You’re okay now. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Let’s go –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I take it back. Chemistry. There were six chairs there. They were pretty far apart, if that’s what you are driving at.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, I mean, it was – there was some interactive discussion. I mean, after these initial, sort of set piece interventions, where people refer to notes but I think only the North Koreans actually read his speech, then there was a – there was a discussion. And, in particular, I think the Chinese raised some issues. Secretary Rice responded. The North Korean actually made a comment as well.

I mean, I’m sorry I can’t get into what everyone said. But it was a perfectly normal and, you know, useful discussion of the issues, with the main issue being the need to get moving on the verification protocol.

QUESTION: So, no friction at all, for example –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No.

QUESTION: -- between the North Korean Foreign Minister and the others?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No friction at all, no, no. It was a congenial atmosphere.

QUESTION: Chris,you said yesterday that some of the verification – part of the process will go alongside phase three, right?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah. Now, this – they didn’t get into all that stuff.

QUESTION: Right. No, I know. I wasn’t – I didn’t mean that they did.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I just – just as far as the (inaudible) is concerned, have you yet talked about what happens to the plutonium? Have they, in principle, agreed to either destroy it or hand it over? What’s going on with --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No. Their argument is the plutonium already produced, i.e., the so-called weapons, because we don’t even -- we haven’t even verified that these – that the plutonium is actually contained in firing devices at this point. So the issue of what to do with a separated plutonium is a later phase issue. And there is a consensus among the five that the next phase should be the so-called abandonment phase. The North Koreans have not called the next phase the abandonment phase, but they did reiterate their obligations under the September ’05 statement to completely denuclearize.

QUESTION: Komura had talks with Minister Pak bilaterally – shortly, briefly after the plenary session or the ministers --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I’m sure -- you know, there was a lot of milling around and people were talking to each other. But I – I’m sure it happened. I just wasn’t there.

QUESTION: How was Secretary Rice with Minister Pak?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: It was brief, a, you know, friendly enough discussion, but Secretary Rice emphasized the need to get moving on the verification protocol and also the need to address the abduction issue.

QUESTION: And how was Minister Pak’s response?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I would – it was certainly not negative, but I would not call it a substantive response.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) right after the session was over and it (inaudible)?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Secretary’s talked about –

QUESTION: (Inaudible) said yesterday, right?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: What?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: You mean right after the meeting?

QUESTION: Yeah.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yes.

QUESTION: She made the point of –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Let the record show the witness nodded his head affirmatively. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I’m sorry, I was looking at something else on my screen

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Okay.

QUESTION: -- so I didn’t see you nod.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: All right.

QUESTION: The Secretary made a point that the North Korean – the response to the draft should be given – and she said first the U.S., but then she said, actually, the six – the other five parties, because the Chinese are the chair. But what they have in front of them, is that a draft that is agreed upon by the other five parties, or is –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Now you’re asking questions that are separate from the six --

QUESTION: Separate from. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because she referred to --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah, you know, several countries put together some notes, some pieces of paper during the denuclearization working group. The U.S. tried to put together a comprehensive protocol based on the principles, written principles that were discussed with other parties. So in putting a piece of paper on the table in Beijing, we were trying to focus, especially the North Koreans, on agreeing on what a verification protocol would like. And since this had been shared with parties already, our idea was not to have any surprises, but to simply show them what we would expect of a international standard of a protocol that would meet international standards, which, by the way, is a term that Lavrov used, as well as the Secretary and others. So --

QUESTION: So (inaudible) a compromise of everything that you wrote and then notes that the others have, you wrote another version of it (inaudible)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, we had discussions with the other parties about what verification was, and we actually tabled a piece of paper which listed several principles. Some parties felt that while everyone agreed these are principles of verification, there was discussion over the last few weeks in bilateral channels that some parties felt some of the principles were, you know, too specific or too vague. But based on that piece of paper and based on feedback, we put together something that was a draft protocol. And the issue --

STAFF: This will be the last question.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: The issue was for the North Koreans to respond to the draft protocol. Based on the discussions that were – that took place in the chief of – in the head-of-del meeting, head-of-delegation meeting, where there was a list of principles which the Chinese put out in a statement, we also reformatted the protocol to look like the list of principles that came out of the head-of-del meeting, suggesting that we are flexible on how – on what the format might look like, but a lot less flexible on what the elements would look like.

QUESTION: Could you tell us what you have discussed with the North Koreans today, (inaudible)?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: With whom?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: With what?

QUESTION: The North Koreans. Yeah, bilat.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Oh, oh, with – well, we didn’t have a bilateral meeting. There was no bilateral meeting. There was just, at the end, a handshake and the Secretary asking him --

QUESTION: You and Ri-- Ambassador Ri in the –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Oh, oh, my – oh, my discussion. My discussion.

QUESTION: Yes.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Oh, you know, it was along the same lines, the need to respond to the verification protocol.

QUESTION: You said last night that you hoped (inaudible) –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Oh, my discussion with former Ambassador Ri from London, not –

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Oh, I thought you said Pak. No, Ri is the --

QUESTION: Former ambassador --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: He is the ambassador-at-large. Yeah. I had a discussion with him to – asking him to convey messages to Kim Kye Gwan about our need to get some specific comments on the verification protocol.

QUESTION: You said last night that you hoped that you’d have something by mid August. Are you any closer now to getting (Inaudible)?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: It’s hard to say because the Foreign Minister is obviously not in the position to deal with these issues specifically. I’d like to think that there was a – because there was such a strong view around the table on the need to engage on a verification protocol that we have moved the ball, but we don’t know yet.

QUESTION: And any time for a Six-Party ministerial? The Chinese said they wanted it soon.

QUESTION: The formal one?

QUESTION: The formal one.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think we – that would probably come a little later.

QUESTION: So what happens next?

QUESTION: A little later? That’s --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I don’t know. I don’t want to predict it. But, you know, it’s up to the Chinese. I would say this informal went pretty well.

QUESTION: Well, what happens – so what’s next?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think the next is the Korean Foreign Minister – South -- North Korean Foreign Minister is obviously taking back a lot of comments on the view that we need a protocol, and we need to hear back from them, and we would expect to hear back from them soon.

QUESTION: Yeah, but didn’t (inaudible)?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Didn’t they already go back with that after you gave them – after you gave them the protocol?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah, we haven’t gotten an answer and it’s been about 12 days. And we had another discussion today and it was raised at the foreign minister, so let’s see if they come back. But, I mean, we’ve made very clear that we need –in order to go forward, we’re going to need this protocol.

QUESTION: I understand that, but I guess I just don’t understand what happened and why was it important or significant and why anyone thinks that it’s contributed to the momentum if actually nothing has-- I mean, is it just the fact that the meeting was held at all?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: What? Are you talking about the --

QUESTION: What happened? I mean, why is what happened today any different than what happened --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I just told you what happened today.

QUESTION: Well --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I didn’t characterize it. You did.

QUESTION: Well, others have. I mean, the Secretary – she said it was a good meeting. She said --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: It was a good meeting.

QUESTION: So why was it a good meeting?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: It was a good meeting because they were --

QUESTION: Because everyone sat around the table and said that they’ve recommitted themselves to something that they committed to long time ago?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I’ll bet you have meetings at AP that fall well below that standard – (laughter) – and you still call them good meetings.

QUESTION: I don’t, actually. I don’t go to them because I think they’re a waste of time. Why was --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I mean, it was the first time --

QUESTION: Convince me this wasn’t a waste of time.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I’m not going to try to convince you of that. I’m simply going to tell you that the six ministers gathered around a table, or gathered around a circle --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: -- for the first time together (inaudible) and they discussed--

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: --and they discussed the need to get moving on verification. I would say there was unanimity among the participants. I think it was useful for the DPRK Foreign Minister to see the importance that is attached to the verification protocol. And I think, as I said yesterday, and I’m sure as the Secretary has said, the real importance of it can’t be determined at this time.

QUESTION: Do you think they felt the love by the Secretary being there? I mean, do you think that they felt that this is a turning point in relations?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Take it back. (Laughter.) I think it was useful for the North Koreans to hear directly from the Secretary of State of the importance we attach to a verification protocol. I’m not sure that quite sings in the way you want it to, but --

QUESTION: Not as sexy as you wanted.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah.

STAFF: Okay, thank you, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: All right.

2008/T21-5


   ]]> Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:17:54 EDT East Asia and the Pacific: Remarks at ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/07/107350.htm http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/07/107350.htm

Remarks at ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Shangri-la Hotel
Singapore
July 23, 2008

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. Thank you, Minister, and thank you very much for the excellent arrangements for all of us here in Singapore. It’s always a pleasure to visit Singapore. And I want to thank my ASEAN colleagues for this opportunity to join you to discuss the many very important, some crucial issues, that we all face.

The United States is deeply committed to engagement with ASEAN. And indeed, I have also had an opportunity and will continue to meet with a number of my ASEAN colleagues on a bilateral basis. We look forward to the Asia Regional Forum as well.

Since we last met, your leaders have signed the ASEAN charter. We welcome the charter’s adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, and respect for and protection for human rights and fundamental freedom. We hope that in implementing this new charter, ASEAN, individually and collectively, will keep these important values in the forefront. We think that the ASEAN charter is a very important step forward.

A strong ASEAN benefits not just Southeast Asia, but greater Asia and indeed, beyond. And so you can count on U.S. support for your efforts to integrate the ASEAN community. We want to continue to be a good partner and support ASEAN, because we share so many common interests. As you’ve said, our economic relationship is extremely important. Our two-way trade topped $171 billion last year.

The ten ASEAN countries represent our sixth largest export market. And as a group, ASEAN is one of the most rapidly growing and dynamic economies in the world. And so the American private sector, which has recognized this, very much also supports U.S. engagement with ASEAN.

Today, we will review progress on the enhanced partnership that President Bush and ASEAN leaders announced in November of 2005. The plan of action that we signed when we met in Kuala Lumpur two years ago forms a roadmap for implementing the enhanced partnership. The work we have completed under a plan of action is clear evidence of the value of our engagement. And I hope that you’re as pleased as I am with the accomplishments that we have had.

One of the ways that ASEAN can become stronger and implement the ideals expressed in the charter is by encouraging peace and prosperity and democracy across the region. We are especially concerned, as you know, about the situation in Burma. And the United States did indeed extend humanitarian assistance. We will always extend humanitarian assistance no matter the political circumstances, we frankly would like to have been able to do more. But we believe that ASEAN has an important role to play in addressing the root cause of Burma’s grave problem: the repression of the Burmese democracy movement.

It is in the interests of the people of Burma, and of ASEAN as an organization, to persuade the leaders there to release all political prisoners and to begin a genuine, time-bound dialogue with democratic and ethnic minority leaders on a credible transition to democracy.

Finally, I hope you’ve had an opportunity to review transnational issues that affect all of us. As you mentioned, we have a common interest in dealing with the effects of climate change. We have a common interest in dealing with the food security issues that are now so prevalent throughout the world, and of course, the energy security issues that we all face.

I would like to discuss how we might improve our coordination in response to natural disasters in the region. All in all, we have a very strong foundation. We have many issues that we can work on together. And President Bush has been proud over the time of his Administration to deepen and intensify our engagement and our dialogue with ASEAN.

And this is, of course, the last time that I will meet with you as Secretary of State. But I know that the United States of America will remain committed to ASEAN and to the future deepening of relationships between these very important countries and this very important maturing and further integrating organization. Thank you very much.

2008/T21-3


Released on July 23, 2008

   ]]> Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT East Asia and the Pacific: Remarks After Six-Party Informal Ministerial http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/07/107379.htm http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/07/107379.htm

Remarks After Six-Party Informal Ministerial

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Shangri-la Hotel
Singapore
July 23, 2008

SECRETARY RICE: Look, it was a good meeting, no surprises. It was just an informal opportunity. I think everybody essentially confirmed the September agreement, confirmed the October 2007 agreement, confirmed that we need to move ahead rapidly to finish phase two obligations; a lot of discussion of the verification protocol and the importance of the verification protocol; a call to have better bilateral relations among the various parties.

And I thought it was – you know, the atmosphere was actually very good. The Chinese did a really excellent job of running the meeting, and I think they are very focused on moving forward. And I think they would like to have a more formal ministerial at some point, but no one – we didn’t commit to a date for that, although we said we would.

QUESTION: Did you get a North Korean – what kind of assessment do you have of him and what he said?

SECRETARY RICE: It was not – nothing surprising. He talked about the importance of everybody meeting their obligations. It was a not a --

QUESTION: So he talked about the importance or you did?

SECRETARY RICE: About – of everybody meeting their obligations, but I don’t want to go, you know, into detail about what everybody said, just to say there weren’t any surprises. But it wasn’t – you know, it wasn’t a standoff with people just stating their positions. I think we had probably three or four rounds of comments. So, you know, the initial – very often, these things, the initial thing is people read a statement. But a couple of people didn’t and then there were several – it was interactive. It wasn’t just people making statements, which is good.

QUESTION: Did you get any kind of sense about what they think about the draft protocol?

SECRETARY RICE: No, but we --

QUESTION: It was just --

SECRETARY RICE: We didn’t. You know, it’s important that we get a response, that the parties, the Six Parties get a response. It was actually China, as the chair of the denuclearization working group.

QUESTION: Did they give any indication about when they might?

SECRETARY RICE: You know --

QUESTION: This seems to be – much like Iran, you know --

SECRETARY RICE: We didn’t get into specific timetables, but look – the spirit was good because people believe we’ve made progress. But there is also a sense of urgency about moving on, and a sense that this – we can’t afford to, sort of, have another hiatus of several months.

Okay?

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, guys.

QUESTION: Oh, one more thing.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: Did you shake hands with the --

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: I didn’t see it.

SECRETARY RICE: With the North Korean --

QUESTION: With the North Korean, you shook hands with him? And --

SECRETARY RICE: Twice.

QUESTION: Twice?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: And secondly, did you – you said beforehand that you were going to give a firm message that they had to meet their commitments and their obligations on all aspects of the nuclear program.

SECRETARY RICE: I – yes, I did, but so did others.

MR. MCCORMACK: All right, guys.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY RICE: All right.

QUESTION: Thank you.

2008/T21-4


Released on July 23, 2008

   ]]> Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT East Asia and the Pacific: The U.S. and East Asia and the Pacific: Assisting in Disaster Preparedness http://www.state.gov/r/pa/scp/2008/107314.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/scp/2008/107314.htm
Fact Sheet
Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
July 21, 2008

The U.S. and East Asia and the Pacific: Assisting in Disaster Preparedness

Get Acrobat Reader PDF version   

The United States provides approximately $16.8 million in annual disaster preparedness and mitigation assistance in the East Asia and Pacific region. This funds efforts to lessen the impact of disasters and to improve the response capabilities of governments and assisting agencies. In addition, when major disasters occur, U.S. agencies, led by USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), respond with generous assistance.

Bilateral Assistance

USAID, which provides the bulk of U.S. disaster assistance, focuses strongly on Southeast Asia. Programs aim to help mitigate floods, droughts, tsunamis, and other natural disasters. These efforts build up local and national government response capabilities, provide forecasting capabilities, and minimize the public health risks of disasters.

Past U.S. Disaster Assistance in the Region
• 2004 Tsunami
• Cyclone Nargis in Burma
• Typhoon Frank in the Philippines
• Sichuan, China Earthquake		 U.S. Annual Financial Assistance in the Region (estimated)
• Bilateral- $8 million
• Regional- $500,000
• Through U.S. PACOM and ARF - $3.35million
• Tsunami Warning Systems - $4.975 million

Regional Efforts

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
U.S. assistance helps Southeast Asian nations implement ASEAN’s goals for disaster management and emergency response. U.S. assistance includes support for the establishment of an ASEAN Emergency Response Assistance Team for Cyclone Nargis relief, assistance for an ASEAN-wide Incident Command System for ASEAN response to domestic crises, and work on developing more effective needs assessments for disasters.

APEC’s Task Force on Emergency Preparedness (TFEP) programs have strengthened community resilience to natural disasters and pandemics, improved disaster communication and damage assessment, and exchanged strategies on large-scale disaster recovery. The U.S., through TFEP, aims to mitigate business disruption, promote the economic benefits of disaster risk reduction investments, and highlight the importance of public-private partnerships.

U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)

Joint efforts strengthen the ability of regional governments to coordinate in the event of large disasters requiring major, multilateral, civil-military responses. ARF efforts grow out of and sometimes expand the work of PACOM’s Multinational Planning Augmentation Team (MPAT) Program and Center of Excellence for Disaster Management and Humanitarian Affairs (COE-DMHA). These centers develop coordination between regional militaries and with the humanitarian community. Programs include multinational exercises, development of common operating procedures, and raised awareness of international standards. ARF plans to host a Disaster Relief Exercise in the Philippines in mid-2009.

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC)

The U.S. will continue to support the International Tsunami Information Center and the Pacific Tsunami Warning System. The U.S. provides interim tsunami forecast services for the Indian Ocean and other regions while working with the IOC to deliver tsunami warning expertise and capabilities to the Member States.



   ]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:01:07 EDT East Asia and the Pacific: Roundtable With Traveling Press http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/107332.htm http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/107332.htm

Roundtable With Traveling Press

Christopher R. Hill, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Scot Marciel, U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs and Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Shangri-la Hotel
Singapore
July 22, 2008

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: All right. Do you know Scot Marciel? He is our Ambassador to ASEAN, in addition to being Deputy Assistant Secretary for Southeast Asia.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: How are you doing?

QUESTION: Hi. Very nice to meet you. Sue Pleming, Reuters.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Hi. Scot.

QUESTION: Lachlan Carmichael, AFP.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Hi.

QUESTION: Matt Lee with AP.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Hi.

QUESTION: Nick Kralev, Washington Times.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Great. I think I’ll be traveling with you guys for a little bit after this.

QUESTION: Oh, good.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Scot’s going to go on to Perth and then to Auckland and then to Apia.

QUESTION: You’re not coming?

QUESTION: So you’re not going to Skopje? Are you going to Skopje?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, I’m going to Vienna to see the IAEA.

QUESTION: Right.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: And then I will drop down to Skopje.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: I’m hoping to be made an honorary citizen of Apia.

QUESTION: Of Apia. I’m sure that will be a great moment.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: (Inaudible) in my father’s footsteps.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: All right. So --

QUESTION: Are you on the record? Who are you today?

AMBASSADOR HILL: I think I’m – I thought I was – I thought they said this was a backgrounder.

STAFF: I said on the record.

QUESTION: Well, will you say – will you tell us more if you go on background?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, then on the record.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, Scot definitely – I mean, Sean said on the record?

STAFF: On the record. He did, yes.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: All right.

QUESTION: So do you have something to open with or do you want us to just start?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, I mean, this is the 40th – this, you know, ASEAN is probably the sort of marquee multilateral structure in East Asia. It’s been – it’s the oldest. It’s been – it was started, I think, 41 years ago back in ’67. What the Secretary is attending is something called the ASEAN Regional Forum, which has ASEAN and ten other – no --

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Yeah, it’s 27.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah, 27. So it’s ASEAN plus 17 other countries. Plus, she’s attending the ASEAN Dialogue Partners meeting, which is each ASEAN member has a dialogue partner and our ASEAN member that we’re paired up with is Singapore for this year.

ASEAN, as I said, it’s been around for 41 years. It started off dealing with economic issues and now it’s increasingly dealing with some security issues, grappling with tough issues now like Burma and most recently this Thai-Cambodia border dispute over this Muslim temple called --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: (Off-mike).

QUESTION: Hindu/Buddhist. Early – very early Hindu turning to Buddhist.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: (Off-mike).

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: So ASEAN was grappling with that issue today. As you may have see, the ASEAN – the statement by their – chairman’s statement by George Yeo -- it’s not Italian, it’s just George Yeo, Y-e-o -- (laughter) --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: So George Yeo had very good chairman’s statement and, you know, deals with some of the issues in Burma and I think it also dealt with this border dispute. So they – you know, this is the meeting that – they really very much value Secretary Rice coming here. She came to the Malaysia meeting two years ago. And that’s all I guess I have for an opener.

QUESTION: What about the Six-Party meeting tomorrow? What are you expecting to come from that and what’s your message going to be?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, we have a – it’s a Six-Party informal. It’s something we did in Manila a year ago when John Negroponte attended. But of course, this is the first time that we’ll get all six ministers around the table. It – there is no formal agenda, but it’s expected that there will be a (inaudible) – I mean, a discussion about completing the verification protocol in phase two, and perhaps an opening discussion of what phase three might look like.

QUESTION: Are you –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: What’s that? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Are you optimistic of meeting the 45-day deadline for the verification protocol? Has that changed?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, we have lengthy discussion about a draft verification protocol that we tabled in Beijing. The North Koreans took it home to study it, and we’ve asked them for some specific comments and we’re looking forward to getting those as soon as possible. I think everyone wants to get this thing completed well before the 45 days.

QUESTION: Can I just say, there seems to be some confusion about when that was presented. Was that presented when you guys were all there for the heads of delegation?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: So where did this ‘last week’ come in?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Oh, was it two weeks ago now?

QUESTION: Yeah.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I’m sorry. It’s --

QUESTION: No, you didn’t say that. That’s what some – I think our story says (inaudible).

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I may have missed – you know, sometimes weeks go by in a blur for me.

QUESTION: It was Tuesday, I believe.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah, so it would have been ten days ago, I think. I think we presented it, like, Friday a week ago --

QUESTION: And it went – and the meeting went to Saturday, right?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: It was –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah. And what’s today? Tuesday?

QUESTION: Yeah. So nine or ten days.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: So nine or –

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah, do the math.

QUESTION: Okay. So anyway, it was in the same meeting?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Same – the same --

QUESTION: There wasn’t in a separate transmittal of this stuff?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah, right, right. The trouble with talking about Six-Party stuff here is you have people here who cover ASEAN and so they start thinking there’s some new element and they put it on the wires, and you’re supposed to have editors who catch things like that. But in the summer, a lot of them are on vacation. And so ‘lo and behold.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) everything on the news cycle, then. Hey, Chris, you said you’re going to go to Vienna and to the IAEA. In the – in what you agreed on in Beijing last time, it was not very clear that the IAEA would have a very specific role in verification.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Not clear yet.

QUESTION: Okay. So, what are you going to do in Vienna when you talk to them and what do you expect to get the North Koreans to agree in terms of IAEA involvement?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, I don’t want to – I mean, our view is that there should be IAEA involvement. And this is laid out in the Chinese statement, Chinese press statement that was issued at the end of the Six-Party head-of-delegation meeting. But it’s also envisioned in our – the draft protocol that was circulated. So our view is there should be an IAEA role. The precise role needs to be worked out through negotiation, but we would expect IAEA to have a continuing role.

QUESTION: And you’re going when to Vienna?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I’ll be there Friday. I think I leave here Thursday at midnight or something.

QUESTION: When is it –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: And the purpose of going to the IAEA is not so much to discuss the specific protocol, as to give them an overall briefing of where we stand in the process.

QUESTION: Does this involvement mean people on the ground in North Korea?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Does the involvement mean IAEA people on the ground in North Korea?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I would say the involvement would mean their continued being on the ground, because they are on the ground now.

QUESTION: No. Yeah, but they’re not involved with the verification. They’re just observing.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Right. Yeah. Well, right now, they are observing the shutdown of the facilities. So we have laid out a draft protocol that envisions a role for them and I’m not prepared at this point to say how much or precisely what they’re supposed to be – what they’re going to do. That’ll come out in the negotiation. But we want them to have a role, but we also want the Six Parties to have a role.

QUESTION: So is it just you that’s going to Vienna or is – are all the – are all six or all five?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No. It’s just me going to Vienna.

QUESTION: Can you give us just – I know you don’t want to get into the negotiations of – but the draft protocol you presented, like, how many pages is it? What kind of points does it have in it and what --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think it was a four-page draft protocol, which envisions a verification based on the six parties and on a role for the IAEA.

QUESTION: Okay. And it’s been –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: But my purpose in going to the IAEA is a broader purpose, to brief them overall on where we stand in the Six Parties, because the actual verification negotiations are being done by the verification office in the State Department.

QUESTION: Was the draft agreed to by all five or is it just your draft?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Oh, it was our draft. Some other members of the – it was a U.S. draft. There was – there were a lot of discussions about it. And so all the capitals are taking it back for comment, not just North Korea. So it is not agreed by five.

QUESTION: But it’s the basis of what will become?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: We think it’ll be the basis, yeah, depending on how – what the comments look like when they come back.

QUESTION: And do we – did you circulate it back in Beijing or was it afterwards?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: In Beijing.

QUESTION: So no one has rejected it yet, out of hand?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No.

QUESTION: And it hasn’t come back with red “no’s” written across it?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Not yet, but we anticipate everyone will have some comments.

QUESTION: And --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I mean, when you have these multilateral negotiations, someone’s got to table a draft.

QUESTION: Right.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: And so we’ll see what the other five think.

QUESTION: So in terms of the draft and the minister – I mean, the kind of negotiation of this is not really something the ministers are going to do, is it?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, no, no.

QUESTION: So what are they – so what – are they going to look at the draft? I mean, are you expecting the North Koreans --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Oh, the ministers have all seen it, but that’s not what they’re discussing at this informal meeting. This is going to be a much more general discussion about the – completing phase two and getting on to phase three.

QUESTION: Okay, because I thought I saw it coming from you that it would be discussed --

QUESTION: You said --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Oh, no.

QUESTION: Well, you said there would be a discussion on finishing the verification protocol.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah. I didn’t mean to imply they’re negotiating the verification protocol --

QUESTION: No, butdo you expect --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: -- finishing the verification phase – let me – or but – well, no, finishing the – I mean, there’ll be a discussion about the need to complete a verification protocol, but they’re not going to be discussing the elements of the verification protocol.

QUESTION: Okay, because that’s gone back to capitals to pick at and then you’ll discuss it at a later stage?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you think the North Koreans could bring you back or the others would bring it --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Here?

QUESTION: -- to this meeting with their comments?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, no.

QUESTION: No. So that wasn’t part of the deal?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No.

QUESTION: Is there a timeline for it, when it should come?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, we’re trying to get this all done by the 45 days, which is mid-August. So we would – we want to – I think what we’ll do is pretty soon ask for comments and talk to the Chinese about when they can schedule a denuclearization working group again.

QUESTION: When is the 45 days up?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, depending on how you count it, it’s about August -- let me say the week of August 10th. And the reason I’m giving some fudge is is we haven’t worked out whether it should be workdays or not.

QUESTION: Isn’t it in the state sponsors thing?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think it’s just 45 days. Does it say --

QUESTION: It doesn’t say working --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: All right. Well, if it doesn’t say – I mean --

QUESTION: 45 straight days (inaudible) --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: 45 straight days --

QUESTION: -- so we can never have it.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: 45 straight days would be, I think, August 10th. But I personally am not sure whether that’s the precise date. I’m just trying to be accurate with you.

QUESTION: Are the North Koreans issuing any kind of red lines for inspections or any sign of --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, I mean, we had – you know, again, we were in the middle of discussing it. I don’t want to, you know, give what their position is, because their position may change. They made some preliminary comments, indicated some problems with it. But we have to see what their considered comments back from capital are and we have not received those yet.

QUESTION: You said you’d also look at what the next phase might look like. Could you be a bit more specific?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah, because when we go to third phase, several of the delegations, including the U.S. delegation, would like to see this be the abandonment phase, when they abandon weapons. And so we need to see if that’s – if we can work out – well, they will have a discussion at the ministers, and then those of us – heads of delegation – we would meet at some point subsequently and see if we can work out some kind of roadmap or work schedule for the third phase.

QUESTION: Is the mid-August – when you’re talking about – I mean, the 45 days, and your wanting to get – you’re talking about getting the verification protocol completed in the 45 days?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yes.

QUESTION: So why was this – oh, jeez, I’ve got to go talk to our people who are here – something about early September?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I don’t know what they’re talking about.

QUESTION: Did you see this as well?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, I didn’t. Early September? There’s nothing going on in early September. I mean, school opens again, but I –

QUESTION: 26th.

QUESTION: Labor Day.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, I don’t know.

QUESTION: Okay. So you want to get the protocol signed, sealed, delivered by --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah, so they can begin --

QUESTION: -- in 45 days.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: -- and begin verification, which could take months.

QUESTION: And what happens if you don’t? Does – do they go back on the --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, again, I don’t want to speculate on it.

QUESTION: Oh, I know. But I mean --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: But I’d call your attention --

QUESTION: -- does everything collapse?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I mean --

QUESTION: I mean, it didn’t matter (inaudible).

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: We’re going to get this done. I mean, we’re going to get this done.

QUESTION: At this point deadlines have been broken so far. And so (inaudible) likely that --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, I mean, I think it’s too early to make that statement, frankly. I mean, we’ve got a specific draft. We address all the issues. And let’s see what they come back with.

QUESTION: You said it will -- it’s going to take months in the draft. Do you have a timeline?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: For the actual verification?

QUESTION: Verification, yeah.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, we don’t. Because the actual verification, which would go alongside phase three, will involve things like sampling. We envision sampling. But in order to sample, you need to complete some actions, for example, of disablement. So what you’re trying to do is verify things that they’ve said, verify commitments, verify statements. And so you might be able to verify them quicker than you think or it might take you longer. So I don’t think you can commit yourself to a timeframe for verification.

QUESTION: But it’s very likely that verification will go on into the next administration, right?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Actual verification – some aspects – well, again, I don’t want to get into a big headline of saying, “verification to go into the next administration.” So, let me just say, I don’t know. I don’t know.

QUESTION: Have the North Koreans mentioned, you know, President Obama’s going to be nicer to us than you guys are?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, and I don’t think there’s anything in the U.S. campaign that would lead them to believe that they’re going to get a better deal later on.

QUESTION: What about the issue – Secretary Rice, on the leg to Shannon, referred to the highly enriched uranium and that there needed to be a full, you know, accounting of all their nuclear programs. Are you making any headway on that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, only in the sense that they made a commitment to us that they do not have an ongoing program. And so that’s a statement that needs to be monitored. And we certainly have a commitment that it should be monitored and we have that commitment from all parties.

QUESTION: Is what they gave you in that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: But wait, guys, guys. The Secretary of State is here and we’re talking entirely about my work. I mean, it’s just not where I want to be, okay. I mean, I understand what you want.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) When the Secretary goes into that meeting with the foreign ministers, she’ll be hoping to get some kind of commitment on timelines and that things will move fast and --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I --

QUESTION: This is high level and --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: This is an informal meeting.

QUESTION: Yeah.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: So I don’t want to say what kind of commitments we would get out of the meeting. This is an informal meeting, the first time we’ve been able to bring all ministers together to discuss the issues. So I think she would look forward to an in-depth discussion of verification. And I think she would look forward to some preliminary discussion of phase three. But beyond that, I don’t want to talk about what kind of outcomes there would be until we see what there might be.

But I mean, the fact that we’re having the discussion, meeting with the parties, you know, is obviously part of the overall process. We would like to see a formal ministerial at some point in Beijing, but that will be up to the Chinese to call.

QUESTION: But she’ll get a sense of how serious he is on this whole process and that’s what she’ll be looking for, right?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: It should give some indications of the serious – or it will give some indications of the amount of effort the North Koreans have put into completing this verification protocol.

QUESTION: I mean, the fact that they are meeting for the first time, could you talk a little bit about that, on the historic value of that? I mean, Secretary Powell met four years ago. Prior to that, Madeleine Albright met in the, sort of, last gasp of the Clinton Administration.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Secretary’s (inaudible) value?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think the Secretary spoke to that issue a couple of days ago, and I think spoke directly to you on that issue if I recall correctly --

QUESTION: Yes, she did.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: -- to the effect that it’s a meeting and --

QUESTION: I think she went overboard on trying to downplay it.

QUESTION: Downplay it, yes.

QUESTION: I mean, it is --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: And so you would expect me to contradict that and go in the other direction?

QUESTION: No.

QUESTION: No, I just think you might want to --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: You can’t fool me. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But this is an important – is this an important turning point in the relations between the U.S. and North Korea or is it just, you know, part of the ongoing Six-Party process?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think – I mean, again, I don’t – I think this is part of the ongoing process. We have talked about having a ministerial for some time now, so I see it as part of the process. Whether it’s a turning point or whether anything is a turning point in this is far too early to tell.

QUESTION: Thank you, Chris. Anything on Myanmar, actually? Do you think anything – or Burma – sorry, Burma – anything --

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Well, the ASEAN Chair issued a statement, I think yesterday – it must have been yesterday if I get my days right, reiterating, I think, their – I can’t remember the exact term, regret or unhappiness that the Burmese had not freed Aung San Suu Kyi and urging them once again to do that, and to take other steps on the political front. So we would expect it’ll be discussed further.

QUESTION: Right, okay. And on Thailand and Cambodia – again will go to war? It’s pretty hard to put – the Thais have the advantage there. Have you ever been there? I mean, it is a cliff.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I haven’t been to the – yeah, I haven’t gone to the site.

QUESTION: The Thais decided to start shooting down, (inaudible) --

QUESTION: Oh really, is that the --

QUESTION: Of course, you have to remember that the Thais have lost – they lost a war to Laos. You know, you don’t loose a war to Laos.

QUESTION: Those Cambodians are pretty tough. I mean --

QUESTION: Yeah, but most of those guys are – most of the guys who were the brutal ones are gone.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: You know, it’s not true exactly, unsatisfied (inaudible).

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: I think it’s fair to say that, you know, the ASEANs are pretty engaged in trying to help find a --

QUESTION: Is there still – maybe we can talk about this later, as of – this is just final right – are the Philippines and the Thais still – or has the Thais changed? I mean, I remember back in the coup in Cambodia in ’97 and all this stuff, it was the Thais and the Filipinos who were really kind of pushing for ASEAN to go beyond its traditional “Don’t do anything” mandate to get involved. Is that still the case or have the Thais --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: You mean on this specific issue or in general?

QUESTION: No, in general; Burma and --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think it depends on the issue.
2008/T21-2




Released on July 22, 2008

   ]]> Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:16:34 EDT East Asia and the Pacific: Update on the Six-Party Talks http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/106439.htm http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/106439.htm

Update on the Six-Party Talks

Christopher Hill, Assistance Security for Asian And Pacific Affairs
Remarks at the Center For Strategic And International Studies (CSIS)
Washington, DC
July 1, 2008

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Derek. It’s a pleasure to be back here at CSIS. It’s a great pleasure to be back in Washington. You know, when you’re off outside Washington, you really miss it. (Laughter) You know, you can get press clips. It’s just not the same. Yeah, it’s just not the same as holding those newspapers here. Anyway, it’s great to be back. I’ve been gone for about 12 days, really missed it.

Let me just say, obviously, we have come to -- I think -- an important juncture in this process. I think the President spoke very clearly on Thursday about where we are and where we are not in this Six-Party process. I know the Secretary also just returned from a trip that was even longer than mine. And I think she spoke very clearly as well about where we are and where we still have to be.

I think the key thing that we have been doing throughout this is to make sure that -- as we go forward -- we do it in a multilateral framework. Now, there are people who say, well it’s not really multilateral; after all, you’re having bilateral meetings. But in fact, what we have tried to do with the six parties is to create a very strong platform on which we can do a number of things. Because at the end of the day, the issue of North Korea’s aspirations for nuclear weapons is an issue rooted in the region, an issue that cannot be solved by the U.S. alone, an issue that really needs the active engagement of its neighbors.

And so, throughout this process, we have tried to make sure that the six parties is a strong institution and capable of handling the tough issues. In fact, what the six parties is doing is trying to deal with some of the causes of conflict in the region, trying to deal with the difficulty of relations among states in the region; in short, trying to not only address some of the historical antecedents that got us where we are, but also try to set up a framework for the future where the countries in the region can address -- can look for areas of cooperation where there was conflict in the past, and look for areas where we can really set up sort of lasting mechanisms for peace and security.

And indeed, I think we are doing that. Anyone who has been involved in multilateral diplomacy knows the proverbial difficulty of herding cats. It is not easy to get everyone going in the same direction at the same time. And in this regard, it is our very strong conviction that China has really stepped up. China has played, I think, a very important role in the chair of the Six Parties.

China is a country in, of course, a rapid development, rapid growth not only economically, but in other ways as well. And so for China to step up in this means that it must not only call on its old relationship with North Korea; it also needs to call on all the aspects of the new relationship with some of the other countries, including our own. The U.S.-China relationship during this administration, I think, has grown tremendously. And the Six-Party process is one of the areas that we have been able to work together with the Chinese. So we have really needed to do this with China because, in some respects, China has a lot of -- certainly has a capacity to reach out to the North Koreans. They probably have the best access to them in Pyongyang. But also, we feel at the end of the day, we need a situation in northeast Asia where all countries can feel that they’re moving ahead.

And one of the areas where we have been most concerned, where the U.S. has really -- where we have really worked very hard is on the issue of Japan, and Japan’s own special problems with North Korea. Now, Japan, like all of us, has to be very concerned about nuclear weapons in North Korea. Indeed, if you look at a map, you can see why. Japan has to be very concerned about North Korea’s development of longer-range missiles. And if you look at a map, you can see why. But also, Japan has a very important issue that many Japanese felt was not dealt with adequately earlier on, and that is the issue of abductions. So this was an issue -- for any of you who haven’t heard about this -- in the late ’70s and early ’80s. North Korea had a program that they have since admitted to where they literally snatched Japanese off of streets, off of sidewalks in Japan. Sometimes Japanese were lured to North Korea. But it was a program by which they brought Japanese to North Korea against their will. And for years and years, people could not quite believe that it had happened. Some people maintain that it had, and indeed, those people turned out to be right.

And so it’s not just an issue that the Japanese government has been concerned about; it’s an issue that the Japanese people have been concerned about. And as we go forward in trying to deal with the problem of nuclear weapons in North Korea and going forward in an effort to normalize with a denuclearized North Korea, we cannot ignore it; indeed, we need to embrace the issue of how Japan’s relationship with North Korea will develop.

There is really no future that North Korea can have if it does not have a good relationship with its neighbors, especially Japan. So we have worked very hard on this issue. Indeed, Japan was able to have some initial meetings to discuss the abduction issue. Indeed, they have been able to work with the North Koreans on some measures that they’re hoping will come to fruition. And we have followed this very carefully. We have been very encouraging about it. We’ve made very clear to the North Koreans that we don’t want a situation where we’re moving ahead on denuclearization and where we don’t see some of the other elements of these northeast Asian relationships moving forward.

And so I think in many respects, the Six-Party process is not only beginning to show some results in the issue of denuclearization; we’re also showing results in the issue of bringing the countries closer together. The China-Japan relationship is a better relationship today than it was before the Six-Party process got going. Indeed, I would argue the Japan-South Korean relationship -- throughout its difficult periods -- has actually always been maintained within the six parties. And in that regard, we have been able to recreate one of the things that we had going earlier. And we have it going now, going in the current round, which is before we have Six-Party meetings -- before there are important events that take place in the Six-Party process -- we have a trilateral. That is, we have the South Korean, Japanese, and the U.S. representatives sit together and work on issues of common interest. We did that in Washington a few weeks ago. We did it in Tokyo a couple of weeks ago. And I’m sure we’ll do it in Seoul and probably in China whenever we have the next Six-Party meeting.

So we have -- in constructing this Six-Party process -- what the President had in mind was putting together a process, a broad framework, a platform in which you can do a number of different things and meet in a number of different configurations. And that’s what we’ve been able to do.

The events that got us to where we are on denuclearization, it took a while. It was not easy. There are some people who have argued that somehow we’ve rushed to this process. In fact, we had hoped to have this done in December, and it took us till the end of June. That is hardly rushing. We have had to deal with a regime in North Korea that is not inclined to talk about its internal decision-making, not inclined to talk openly about what is going on there. We have tried to address a number of different issues with them and trying to lay the stage for when we are able to get through denuclearization, what is normalization going to look like, what are the sort of issues we need to deal with.

You know, when you look at the U.S.-North Korea relationship, this is not a relationship that will begin and end with denuclearization. We have to work on some other issues where we have some profound differences with North Korea, and one of those, of course, is human rights.

So we have a long way to go, but I do believe that the Six-Party mechanism has put all six countries in the same boat, has kind of created a situation where we can all move together. There are times when it’s going [and] there are going to be a lot of bilateral activities as there were in recent months. And then there are times where we’re going to see a lot more multilateral activities, and I think that’s what we’re going to see in the coming months.

So I think the President spoke very clearly about what we expect to see out of the current situation where we are coming to the end of phase two. We need to work very hard on verification. We need to make sure that the understandings we have on verification -- the various elements of verification which include documents, physical access to sites, and interviews with personnel -- that these can all be turned into a verification mechanism that will function. I believe, based on our understandings with the different parties, including with North Korea, we should be able to do that.

We have to keep working on issues that have still not been fully disclosed, although not denied by the North Koreans. We need to deal with the uranium enrichment issue, an issue that we have to continue to -- facts of which we have to continue to excavate, as Secretary Rice has said. We need to continue to work on proliferation issues. And indeed, in getting to the end of this final phase, it was agreed among the six parties that we would have a monitoring mechanism to look at these issues and other issues; that is, to address the need to continue to monitor pledges that are made within the six parties; that is, monitor the obligations of all members of the six parties to fulfill their obligations. And so we will be working on that kind of thing.

Again, I want to stress that none of this is possible without a Six-Party framework. We cannot do this bilaterally. We can talk to North Korea bilaterally. But we have to come back to a Six-Party framework. All of this is based on probably the sort of founding document of the whole process, which is September ’05. Whenever there is a disagreement, whenever there is some misconception or misunderstanding, we come back to the September ’05 statement.

So I think this is something that has, I think, just as in the life of an individual, it happens in the life of a nation where you have to rise to the occasion. And I think some of the countries that have been engaged in this have actually risen to this occasion: to work together, to put aside some bilateral differences, to find ways to talk about the bilateral differences.

Indeed, as we have been able to go forward, we have found that there was this kind of unintended byproduct of the Six Parties where we’ve actually been able to work very closely together with the other countries, even on issues not directly related to denuclearization. We’ve been able to find ways to communicate thanks to the Six-Party process -- so much so that we’re looking to see how this process can form a mechanism for the future, even beyond the issue of dealing with denuclearization.

For this, we need -- there have been a lot of ideas put forward in the nongovernmental sector. And for that, we’re very much open to hearing different ideas about how we can turn the Six-Party process that has been very singularly focused on denuclearization and see if it can address some of the broader issues as we go forward post-denuclearization.

So I hope we can do that. We have some ideas, some principles that we would look to work on. In so doing, of course, the United States considers its bilateral relations in this part of the world really very much bedrock. We consider our bilateral relationship with Japan -- our alliance with Japan -- to be really one of our bedrock items in the region. Similarly our bilateral -- our alliance with South Korea is also of an unchanging nature that we need to -- that we will preserve. So what we do in this multilateral process is not at the expense of our bilateral relationships, but really aims to form a greater sense of community in the region.

So it’s been a long and difficult process. Again, when I hear people say that we’re rushing to something -- if you’re in the middle of it, you wouldn’t call it rushing unless you like to watch turtles race or something. It’s taken a lot of wear and tear on all of us. We have Sung Kim here in the audience -- I don’t know where -- there’s Sung, who went off to North Korea just before the cooling tower came down. And we -- he was there and met with the North Koreans and got a sense of the real atmosphere in the spot.

You know, this was the cooling tower we always envisioned as our twelfth disabling action. The trouble was the North Koreans wouldn’t agree to it; they only agreed to eleven. And so we went with eleven in October, but we thought the cooling tower was very important to try to get done and get down, so we kept working at it. And finally, the North Koreans agreed to make it be the twelfth element, and that’s what -- and we agreed in December and we had hoped to have it done in December.

But as I’ve often said, the Six-Party process offers no refuge for those in need of instant gratification. Everything takes a little more time than you thought it would. But I think the fact that they were able to take down the cooling tower, I think, demonstrated that we really do have a procedure on this disablement and that Yongbyon -- which was entirely capable of producing more and more plutonium -- there was nothing wrong with Yongbyon when it was shut down. I’ve heard people say, well it was old and decrepit. Believe me, that from a technical point of view, the answer to the question of how long Yongbyon could have operated is as long as they want it to operate, because there is nothing old or decrepit about its capacity to produce plutonium. So the fact that it was shut down, and the fact that some major disablement steps were taken, I think, is a very good sign.

I thought, to be sure, the cooling tower did have a symbolic value. I mean, I’ve spoken to audiences about how I thought it was very important that we cut the reverse cooling loop on the reactor. But, you know, many of the audiences would slump over and go to sleep as I would explain the cutting of the reverse cooling loop. But I think now people understand that indeed, we are doing some things. And it’s not just the cooling tower. There are a number of things that have been done and that will continue to be done, including discharging the actual reactor.

So, a lot of work ahead of us. But I think, you know, as we contemplate the end of the second phase, we can take some sense of renewed enthusiasm, can’t we, Sung? And move forward from here as the President very clearly articulated last Thursday.

So, thank you very much, and we can go to some questions.


Released on July 15, 2008

   ]]> Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:32:16 EDT East Asia and the Pacific: Arrest of Anwar Ibrahim http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/07/107094.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/07/107094.htm
Press Statement
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
July 16, 2008


Arrest of Anwar Ibrahim

We believe the detention today of prominent Malaysian opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim raises serious questions and concerns. We urge Malaysian authorities to resolve this matter in a manner that builds confidence in the impartial rule of law in Malaysia.

2008/589


Released on July 16, 2008

   ]]> Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:01:03 EDT East Asia and the Pacific: Afternoon Walk-Through at Six-Party Talks http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/106959.htm http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/106959.htm

Afternoon Walk-Through at Six-Party Talks

Christopher R. Hill, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
China World Hotel
Beijing, China
July 12, 2008

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Hi. I am trying to catch a plane, but I’ll just spend a minute. There will be a press communiqué issued by the Chinese Chair, which I think pretty accurately reflects the range of discussion we had. It will discuss the various elements we talked about, including verification, monitoring, and the North East Asia Peace and Security Mechanism. It also discusses fuel oil and a target time for completing the disablement of the Yongbyon facility. The most important issue is, of course, working out the overall protocol for verification.

There were additional meetings of the denuclearization working group this morning. And the plan is that the delegations will take the documents - the drafts, rather - that have been shared and take them back to their respective capitals (inaudible) and will reconvene at an early date and try to finish the protocol as soon as possible. I must say, a lot of work was done. A lot of specifics were discussed. The meetings went pretty well. And we look forward to getting together very soon and continuing the process.

QUESTION: How did the talk on the scope of dismantlement [go] today?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: We discussed the next phase. We discussed elements. But we didn’t have a very lengthy discussion on it because we were taken up by some other things.

QUESTION: Are you going to keep that discussion on the upcoming --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Probably we’ll have an upcoming -- we’re all going to be in Singapore at the same time, so there’s some thought that maybe we can get together on an informal basis in Singapore. We’ll see. At any rate, [there will] probably be -- depending on what the Chinese Chair does -- an early resumption of the Six-Party process in Beijing at some point.

QUESTION: Is the working group done?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No. The workinggroup did a lot of work. They went through drafts relating to the protocol. The protocol gets very complex because it’s not just saying what verifiers will have a right to do – that is, visit sites – but it also spells out what they can do when they visit the sites. So all this kind of stuff has required a lot of scrutiny. And I think the plan is [to] have everyone go back to capitals and make sure people in capitals are comfortable with what’s agreed.

QUESTION: So it’s done for now?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: So it’s done for now. But I think they’ll reconvene as soon as they get additional guidance from capitals.

QUESTION: Can we say that North Korean cooperation with the Syrians is not of interest anymore?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: As you know, we addressed that with the North Koreans. I think we’ll continue to address that and continue to have a process for monitoring the issue of proliferation. Indeed, monitoring of proliferation -- if you look carefully in the Chairman’s press communiqué -- you’ll see that is addressed. We’ll continue to address that. Same with the uranium enrichment issue.

QUESTION: Do you thinkthe verification process should be set within 45 days (inaudible)?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Oh, yes.

QUESTION: You’re hoping that the verification actually starts within the 45 days?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah, we’d like, first of all, a protocol to be reached within the 45 days and, secondly, to actually begin the verification within the 45 days. We’re just anticipating that, and we don’t see any obstacles to getting that done.

AIDE: I’m sorry. He needs to probably make his flight now.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Ok. I really have to catch my plane. See you later.


Released on July 12, 2008

   ]]> Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT East Asia and the Pacific: Evening Walk-Through at the Six-Party Talks http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/106940.htm http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/106940.htm

Evening Walk-Through at the Six-Party Talks

Christopher R. Hill, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
China World Hotel
Beijing, China
July 10, 2008

QUESTION: How did the talks go today?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Fairly long day today, I started it with a set of consultations first with the Russians and Chinese. Then we met with the trilateral -- with the ROK and Japanese. All of this was, of course, to get ready for Six-Party head of the delegation meeting that started this afternoon around four o’clock.

The discussion at the head of the delegation meeting concerned, first of all, a discussion about some details of the monitoring mechanism, which is the mechanism by which we will monitor obligations and commitments made in the six parties. We also had a detailed discussion about the principles for the verification regime. And, in that connection, the heads of delegation asked the denuclearization working group to get going tomorrow on the negotiation of the actually verification protocol.

Tomorrow, in the heads of delegation, we are hoping to take on the issue of economic and energy assistance for the DPRK. And we hope as well to have a discussion about the next phase. So, all in all, I think it’s a good start to the process. But I think the effort to negotiate the actual verification protocol will be very important. And that’s where we will have experts from all six countries to sit there and -- based on the principles that we all have discussed -- see if they can reach an agreement on that.

QUESTION: So you haven’t [gone into] the substance? The discussion didn’t go into the substance of the verification process?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Sure it did. We had a detailed discussion about the principles of it. And how those principles actually work will be [discussed] when the denuclearization working group meets. There are a lot of technical issues there. When they have a site visit, there will questions about what will verifiers actually do at the site
-- these sorts of things. So there will a lot of details that the denuclearization working group -- with technical people -- will need to take up.

QUESTION: What do you mean by principles? What are the principles?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Again we have an agreement of what they are. It’s basically discussing, for example, the fact the verification needs to include site visits, needs to include documents, needs to include interviews. But -- we had a few more details than that -- but those are examples of the principles. The key thing will be tomorrow when the denuclearization working group meets and actually works out the actual protocol. So they have a lot of work ahead of them. So I hope they are getting a good night’s sleep. Better than we’re getting here at midnight.

QUESTION: How much of the protocol are you aiming to agree upon?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think the hope is the denuclearization working group can go through this and try to reach an agreement. I can’t tell you how quickly it will happen or how many days it will take, but let’s see what they are able to do. Again, there was a consensus around the table on the principles we have discussed before. There was actually some discussion of some of the details of the principles, which is beyond what we have discussed before. But we will have to see how they do.

QUESTION: Ambassador, (inaudible)?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:I’m sorry, the protocol? You will have to ask the Chinese how they are going to handle that. I presume the Chinese will have some kind of chairman statement of some kind. And presumably we’ll have to see how quickly the verification protocol -- which has a lot of details -- and so we’ll have to see how quickly that can be done. I don’t want to predict which day or how many days it will take. We will have to see.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, in the past couple of days has there been any discussion of the declaration as well? In particular [are there] any omissions or gaps in the declaration that will be dealt with?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: There was some discussion about the actual declaration. And the various representatives -- heads of delegation -- gave some opinions about the degree of its completeness. So there was some discussion about that, but I don’t really want to go into details at this point.

QUESTION: Were there any surprises today?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No surprises today. I think we had a lot of bilateral meetings. And, if you consider that we had six delegations, just about all of the six delegations met with their five counterparts, so you do the math. There were a lot of meetings.

QUESTION: If Japan does not participate in economic or energy aid, have you agreed upon how the remaining countries will --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think there will be a discussion tomorrow about the energy assistance, so I don’t want to speculate on that.

QUESTION: Will the verification process have all six or all five -- the remaining five countries -- going to be involved? Or will it be nuclear powers only? Or how is that --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Oh no, verification will definitely include all the members of the six parties.

QUESTION: What about monitoring? Will IAEA be involved?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:There’s a discussion about IAEA. But I don’t want to go into the details. Certainly there was a full discussion about that and the relationship of the IAEA role versus the Six-Party role.

QUESTION: The monitoring mechanism -- does it include the HEU and the proliferation?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, the concept is that there are certain commitments made. For example, in the October statement, there is a commitment by the DPRK that they would -- that they are not proliferating and will not proliferate in the future. So that’s a statement whose veracity needs to continue to be monitored. That’s one example. But there are others. And certainly the DPRK has been concerned about whether countries that have taken up the obligations to provide energy assistance -- whether they are actually doing that. And so they want those situations monitored as well. So that’s the concept of what we’re talking about. And, again, I think when the Chinese complete this as the chair, they will probably describe that. So I don’t want to get into the actual description of it. I think it’s for the Chinese chair to take care of there.

And, by the way, I should say that the Chinese did a really excellent job, not only of the preparations for the meetings. In fact, we decided to go further tonight, to do more tonight, and the Chinese were able to put together a dinner at the Daioyutai on something like two hours notice. And then they went through this agenda, and I think we did pretty well to get all of these details. Again, tomorrow is going to be important because the denuclearization working group meets to do its thing.

QUESTION: Is this monitoring mechanism something that will be set during this meeting?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, there’s an agreement on it. And let me just have the Chinese describe that. It’s really for them to describe.

QUESTION: Is North Korea insisting that they first need to agree on energy assistance and then agree on the verification process?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Again, I don’t want to characterize their position, except to say that we are working on what the energy assistance will look like. This would follow up on the meeting in Panmunjom which, I believe, was on June 10th. So we’ll be following up with further details on that. So I think this is obviously an issue of importance to the DPRK, and we’ll have to work this through.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, the verification steps under discussion apply only to declared sites?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Again, I don’t want to get into details on it. We have to negotiate these issues and what the actual verification protocol will look like. There’s going to be a lot of discussion. There are differences on how it’ll work. I don’t think there are surprises, but certainly there are differences. So, you know, the six teams of experts need to get together and try to work that through.

QUESTION: Would you say that the gaps have narrowed between the North Koreans and the other parties?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I don’t want to talk about gaps yet. The negotiation hasn’t even gotten underway; that’s to be done tomorrow. So it is really too early to talk about widening or narrowing gaps. I would just say all six delegations really came having done their homework and obviously taken this first meeting in some nine months with great seriousness. And I would say that applies to all six delegations.

QUESTION: Ambassador Hill, are you going to be here until the details are all sorted out or --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I don’t know. We’ll see. Again, we have to see how long the heads of delegation meeting goes on.

QUESTION: But that is your --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: My function is in the heads of delegation meeting.

QUESTION: Are we to understand that the heads of delegation meeting is setting the guideline -- or the basic frame -- and then working groups will handle all the details?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Something like that. It is not just that they are handling details. The devil is in the details. So details are very important. But that is why they have some technical people who really know the meaning of these details.

QUESTION: Ambassador, are there any discussions about making the declaration public?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: We didn’t get into that. I know that is foremost on your minds, but it is not foremost on our minds. What we are trying to do is deal with the declaration and the whole verification issue.

QUESTION: Was there any discussion about the Six-Party ministerial meeting?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Some discussion. I think we will do more of that tomorrow.

QUESTION: Do you think you will be able to start mapping out the third phase in this session?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: We are supposed to have a discussion on that sometime tomorrow. In fact, we will have our first meeting of the heads of delegation tomorrow at nine o’clock. So we have got a whole day. And we have got to discuss the energy issues that we didn’t get to. We have to discuss the ministerial. We also have to discuss looking ahead to what phase three might look like. So there is a lot going on. And denuclearization -- although a working group -- I think is a very key development, which only begins tomorrow. I am not going to predict when it will end.

QUESTION: What time are you going to come out tomorrow?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Seriously, I have to go to the embassy at 8:00, so I am going to come out here at 7:30. But I will have no new information between now, which is – last time I checked my watch – midnight, and 7:30 when I walk out of here. All I can tell you is how I slept.

QUESTION: Can you say that the negotiation is going to continue after Sunday?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I don’t want to predict how long the negotiation goes on.

QUESTION: Before you go on to the third phase, when would be the starting point? Would it be after a protocol --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: We are going to discuss some of those timing issues tomorrow. What we have discussed today is what I have already told you today. That is a fair question. But it is best answered maybe tomorrow and probably even better answered by the Chinese. Thank you very much.




Released on July 11, 2008

   ]]> Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT