NORTHEAST ASIA PEACE AND SECURITY NETWORK ***** SPECIAL REPORT ***** This report is distributed to e-mail participants of the NAPS Network. The following is a collection of excerpts on DPRK-related issues from the regular press briefing given by US State Department Spokesman Nicholas Burns on April 14. The transcript was provided by the United States Information Agency (USIA) on April 15. Portions of these excerpts were summarized in several items of the April 15 Daily Report. -------------------- STATE DEPARTMENT NOON BRIEFING (Excerpts) Washington, DC, April 14, 1997 US State Department Spokesman Nicholas Burns briefing. A couple of other issues of note -- things that I have been asked about. We have agreed now on the date and venue on our missile talks with the North Koreans. The talks will be held in New York City on May 12th ad 13th, and the focus will be on concerns of the United States regarding North Korean missile-related activities. The head of our delegation will be Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bob Einhorn. This is a big week for Korea issues. As you know, the United States is now finishing its international deliberations on the issue of whether or not to respond to the augmented appeal of the World Food Program for a greater level of food assistance for North Korea. I would expect that within the next 24 hours that I'll have an announcement to make on that issue, probably tomorrow and not today. As you know, on Wednesday we begin our trilateral talks up in New York City with the Republic of Korean and North Korea. And this is to receive an answer from North Korea on our mutual proposal for a four-party peace talks to conclude successfully -- well, to conclude the negotiations concerning the end of the Korean War of 43 years ago, and also to determine ways to promote stability -- security stability on the Korean Peninsula. This is going to be an important set of talks. I talked to our chief delegate Chuck Kartman this morning and he believes that these will be lengthy discussions on Wednesday. It's not at all clear that we will have a final response from the North Koreans on Wednesday, for those of you hoping to cover it. It may be we get that later in the week. We don't know yet. We'll just have to see what happens. But there are bilateral talks scheduled for Friday in New York. And I just wanted to make sure that all of you knew they were two days of talks -- and that I couldn't promise a definitive statement on Wednesday. Perhaps we'll get it. Perhaps we won't. We'll see. And that's how we approach that this week. --- Q: Has North Korea deployed the Rodong missile? There is a report that it has recently deployed this weapon. BURNS: Carol, I can't confirm for you whether or not that missile has been deployed, but I can tell you -- you've seen some statements out of Japan this morning, statements of concern about that. We have concerns, not only about that missile but about various missile-related activity of the North Koreans. And that is why we have sought and have now achieved a scheduling of a meeting with the North Koreans on the 12th and 13th of May to discuss a variety of these concerns. Q: Why can't you confirm it? I mean, do you not know? BURNS: The United States normally does not put itself in a position publicly to confirm events of that nature. You ought to address yourself to the North Koreans. They have a website. They'll be in New York. They do. Have any of you looked at the website to see if the answer to the question is there? I'm trying here, Carol. I'm trying to be forthcoming. Q: Not very successfully. BURNS: Well, we try. One hundred percent effort. That's all you can ask of me, right? Q: If you say you are concerned, though, you're concerned specifically about this? BURNS: We're concerned about a variety of missile-related activities and various allegations that have been made. And that is why we have sought these talks with the North Koreans. I think we last spoke to them formally in April 1996, so it is high time for another meeting. Q: In reports like this though, I mean, you talked last week about the possibility of setting new talks with the North Koreans. BURNS: Yes. Q: Did this report somehow make scheduling these talks more urgent, or was this already -- were you already planning to announce this? BURNS: We have long had concerns about various activities of the North Koreans, various missile-related activities. What that is, Barry, is, you know, various allegations of sales and transfers and developments. We see a lot of reports and we believe we need to look into all of them and discuss them directly with the North Koreans because they are very important. Proliferation is one of our major global concerns. I can't be in a position here of confirming launches of missiles or sales of missiles until we have all the information at our disposal. What has to happen first is, we have to meet with the North Koreans to get their view of what has happened -- very important talks led by Bob Einhorn. Q: If the North Koreans agree to accept these peace talks this week, what are the chances that the U.S. will move on its commitment to ease sanctions, trade sanctions? BURNS: I simply don't want to get ahead of the story this week. Let's see what the message is from the North Korean delegation in New York this week. We hope it is positive. We hope the North Koreans will accept our proposal for four-party talks. We urge them to accept it. As the South Korean government and the South Korean foreign minister said today, this is a proposal that makes sense for the South Koreans and the North Koreans and for stability in the Korean peninsula. A very important proposal. Let's just take it one step at a time. If we get a positive answer, we will obviously try to begin those talks with the Chinese government and the others and see how relations develop from there. But I don't want to predict what steps we would take. Q: (Inaudible) your extreme concern that you have voiced over the food situation in North Korea. What are the chances that you will give more aid, greater than $10 million, tomorrow? BURNS: That's an interesting question. I can't announce the U.S. response to the World Food Program appeal until tomorrow. If I started saying, you know, bigger than a bread basket then you would have a story to write today and not tomorrow, and I think you need a story tomorrow. Today you have enough stories. Don't you think so? Q: Well, maybe we would have a story today. BURNS: I can't talk about it until tomorrow. Q: Are you establishing some sort of linkage between the food contribution and these other issues? BURNS: No, we have never had a linkage. We look at the food requests on a humanitarian basis. We do not link the food requests. We do not link the food requests to other issues in our relationship. Q: Should we drag out the -- I think I can almost remember what was said by the Secretary when she was in Korea in deciding on food shipments, we will look at their overall behavior. And I don't want to misquote. She never specified what she meant, but it suggested that I know this is a humanitarian country and all that but I suspect that she was looking at a larger picture too when she was speaking of food aid. BURNS: Barry, when the Secretary -- Q: -- in South Korea announced their shipment, she was talking about looking at the whole picture. I am sure those quotes are there. BURNS: Barry, when the Secretary announced the initial $10 million U.S. contribution, I believe that was in London before we got to Asia... Q: All right, but on that trip. BURNS: The rationale that we put forward was that there is no linkage. We've said that very consistently. I don't quite remember what the Secretary said or didn't say in Seoul, when we had that press conference that afternoon. But I can tell you that longstanding U.S. policy is that we don't link. Q: You believe -- you said you believe that the talk will be lengthy. Does that mean you will be getting into the issues of substance, such as agenda for four-way talks, venue, date, and such? BURNS: Well it will just depend on what message the North Korean delegation brings to New York. We hope it's a positive message of acceptance of the four-party proposal. I really just was trying to give you heads up in terms of how you cover this event, and what expectations you have. It may be we have a very clean event on Wednesday -- there's an answer, we report that to you, and there's a story. It may be that we have -- we're going to have a second meeting, of course, a bilateral meeting on Friday. It may be that we get an answer on Friday. I just don't know. I didn't want to commit us to producing a story for you, or an answer for you, or have them produce an answer on one day. We'll have to see how the talks go. Q: Are we still on North Korea? BURNS: Yes, still on North Korea? Q: Speaking Friday -- Friday's meeting -- what will be the agenda of the meeting? The Liaison Office, or missile talks, or similar issues? BURNS: No, the missile talks will be held in May. The agenda for Friday's meeting are some of the issues that -- all of the issues that we work on with the North Koreans, from the agreed framework to the issue of American Missing in Action, and remains of Americans Missing in Action from the Korean War -- over 8100 cases that are -- very high national priority is placed upon that issue. All the different issues that we deal with with the North Koreans. Q: What is your understanding of the Liaison Office? BURNS: Excuse me? Q: The Liaison Office, opening a Liaison Office? BURNS: Yes, I don't -- I don't -- I have nothing to say. We continue to discuss that with the North Koreans, and I'm sure that will be part of the agenda this week, but I have no announcements to make on that. Q: Can I do Iraq? BURNS: I think we still have one more in Korea. Q: Just today the North Koreans have threatened to pull out of the framework agreement. Any reaction to that statement and how that might affect the --? BURNS: On the agreed framework? Q: That's right. BURNS: Phasing North Korea's nuclear program -- Q: Mm-hmm. BURNS: Didn't see that statement, don't believe it to be an accurate reflection of North Korean behavior because, as of today, North Korea is meeting all of its obligations to us and the Koreans and the Japanese in the agreed framework. We are monitoring their observance of that agreement, and it is satisfactory. So let's look at the performance and the ground. I don't think there's any reason to be concerned there. --- Q: Nick, (inaudible) on North Korea. Just go back for a second. What I partly recalled was her statement that peace talks -- how fast they would go -- could depend on how much the North Koreans are hurting. BURNS: That's a different statement. Q: Meaning their economy, their ability to feed -- BURNS: That's more of an analytical statement. Q: Sure, it's an analytical statement. BURNS: The description of the situation, as it is. Q: It's also entirely logical. BURNS: That's certainly not, in my mind -- now that you say it, I remember the exchange. That does not represent a condition. It's more of an analytical statement. Q: Of course, it is. But it struck me as bad -- in other places, too, where there's poverty, where there are problems, in some cases we're contributing to the low economic status of countries by boycotts and such to force changes, to force countries like Iraq to behave in a different way. The clear inference here was that North Korea's -- BURNS: I don't accept those premises. Q: You don't think that's why we're working on Cuba and North Korea, and Iraq the way we do? BURNS: I don't accept that the United States, for instance, is to blame for the economic problems of Cuba or Iraq or North Korea; because that's the premise in your statement. Q: Look, there's an economic boycott the U.S. has against Iraq, right? BURNS: Right. Q: And the economy -- BURNS: The United Nations, actually, Barry, the United Nations. Q: Fine, but the United States is sometimes standing alone, as Secretary Christopher said, for what they know will be right, even if you didn't have support with the -- BURNS: It's the right policy. Q: It's the right policy, (inaudible). All right, now the point is that one of the unfortunate results of probably a brilliant policy is that -- BURNS: Thank you. Q: -- is that people suffer economically, and people get very hungry. And you can understand that. If there's an economic blockade, there isn't food -- food isn't as readily available in the country. What I thought she was doing in Seoul was linking the appetite of the North Koreans to come to terms on a settlement for North Korea -- for the Peninsula -- to how badly they want to be accepted by the rest of the world. And one of the ways you would know that they badly want to be accepted is that they -- is if they are having terrible problems feeding their own people. That's all I meant. And it's probably what she meant, I would think. BURNS: I think, analytically speaking, it's probably true that because of the dire economic straits and problems in North Korea, they are looking for broader -- they're opening up to the international community, to the World Food Program, the other agencies of the U.N. They need help; there's no question about that. But I must respond very briefly to at least one of the premises that I heard in your question, Barry, and that is that Saddam Hussein is responsible, in Iraq, for the fact that some people don't have enough food because he chooses to spend the money they have on palaces to himself; and that's undeniable. And in the case of North Korea and Cuba, it's the failed economic policies of Communism that have produced poverty. That was true of the Soviet Union, and it's true of all Communist countries. It's a failed system. You don't see this happening in much of the rest of the world these days. You see it in Communist countries. So I think it's important to note that the United States' policies of containment, where are brought about for very good strategic reasons are not to blame. In fact, those policies are a reflection of the fact that Communism does exist in certain parts of the world and should be contained. Q: So you never withhold food as a corrective measure? You never use food, are you saying, as an instrument of foreign policy? BURNS: Well, I'd say this: in the case of Cuba, we contributed more humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people in the last year than the Cuban government. In the case of Iraq, we facilitated the food-for-oil program so that food can be received by the suffering Iraqi people. In the case of North Korea, we've responded to every food request since 1995. We act out of humanitarian principles. But if you're looking for the cause, the underlying cause of these problems, it's the failure of these countries to meet their responsibilities to their own people. Q: Speaking of the food situation in North Korea, how do you assess their current situation, compared to five weeks ago when you had the four-party briefing? Has the situation become bad, has the situation becomes worse, or -- BURNS: Well, the United States government itself does not have a complete view of the food situation, but we rely on the World Food Program, visiting Congressmen -- Tony Hall was just back last week from a trip there. By all accounts, the situation is worsening. It is dramatically worse than it was several months ago, or even four or five weeks ago. At least our assessment of it is dramatically worse, and that's cause for great concern. That's why we've looked at this request by the World Food Program with a great sense of urgency. And we'll have an answer for you tomorrow on our response. [end of transcript excerpts]