NORTHEAST ASIA PEACE AND SECURITY NETWORK ***** SPECIAL REPORT ***** August 8, 1997 The following is the complete transcript of the press briefing given by a senior US official on Thursday August 7 following the adjournment of the four-party Korean peace talks preliminary meetings in New York. The official was speaking on "background" and therefore was not identified. The US State Department transcript was provided by the United States Information Agency (USIA) on August 8. Citations to this briefing, as well as other media reports and officials' statements concerning the preliminary meetings, were included in the August 8 Daily Report. -------------------- BRIEFING BY SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ON FOUR-PARTY PREPARATORY TALKS Columbia University New York, New York August 7, 1997 SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: I appreciate your patience in staying around for several days, waiting for results which are going to fall a bit short of a complete story. As you all know, we have been meeting in a trilateral format to persuade North Korea to come to Four-Party Talks. We did reach that agreement, and this was the preparatory meeting to agree on the logistics details for a Four-Party meeting. At the beginning of this meeting, we determined that the best approach would be to try to start with some simple things and move our way towards more complicated things. And so we began with the subject of the timing and the level of representation of the Four Party plenary. We agreed that the plenary meeting would take place approximately six weeks after we reached agreement on all the details during the preparatory meeting. And we agreed that the level of representation would be the senior officials of each country under the direction of the ministers, who would meet when it was appropriate and when they were available. We then discussed the venue, and we agreed that the best site for the Four-Party plenary meeting would be Geneva. We then discussed operational procedures for the meeting. We agreed that the United States would chair the first meeting and that thereafter the chairmanship would rotate according to a random draw to be conducted during the first meeting. Although none of you will care about this detail, we also agreed that the Secretariat for each session would rotate along with the chair. This preparatory meeting was conducted in three languages, and we agreed that the plenary meeting will be conducted likewise -- all three languages. I'm not sure what we would have decided had this not gone pretty smoothly, but it did. And I'm very happy to report that this preparatory meeting went rather well. The languages worked, and the addition of a new participant, the People's Republic of China, in no way complicated the conduct of the meeting but in fact, if anything, improved the meeting. This may have been because the head of the Chinese delegation is a gentleman with extraordinarily deep experience in multilateral diplomacy, having been their permanent representative to the United Nations and having served here in New York for, I believe, eleven years. We came to the subject of agenda and found that there were some significant differences over whether the agenda should be of a general nature or more specific. And finding ourselves unable to proceed further with this, decided that we should adjourn the preparatory meeting for now and reconvene some time during the week of September 15th, somewhere here in New York. And we'll post more information when we have it. I'd like to conclude this introduction to you and then invite your questions simply by saying that the atmosphere of this meeting was very good and leaves me with some confidence that when we resume next month that we will enter into an atmosphere that is still good, in which there is some confidence that the four-party structure can work -- you will recall this was everyone's first exposure to it -- and that we will finish the job in that session. So, if I can stop there, I'll take a few questions. Q: The meeting is September 15th? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: The week of September 15th. Q: The meeting, is that going to be between the four parties or the three parties? Is this going to be another preparatory meeting? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Yes. Q: And where is it going to be, please? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: It will be somewhere in New York. Q: Somewhere in New York City? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Yes. Q: Excuse me for being late. Why hasn't it been possible to reach agreement at this time? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: We actually did reach quite a number of agreements. Q: Could you tell us what you reached agreements on and what's still outstanding? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: I've done that already. Q: I'm sorry. SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: And I've already discussed what we did not agree. Q: On today's morning session, trilateral meeting -- North Korea and South Korea and the U.S. -- it was initiated by North Korea, and I think North Korea demanded food aid and lifting of economic sanctions imposed by the United States. Is it true? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Which part of that? All of it? Q: All of it, yes. (Laughter) SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: In fact, there were some informal contacts this morning. And, as we have all come to expect, the subject of food has come up again during those informal contacts. I would not further characterize that meeting or the discussion, however. Q: I have a follow-up question. So, we understand that food, also sanctions, like that, North Korea just raised today's morning session, also U.S. troop reduction. In which point are U.S.and South Korean side and North Korean side can make a deal and go into the real talks? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: The U.S. view has always been that the setting of this agenda could be very difficult, and in order to expedite our entry into substantive talks at a plenary session, it would be wisest to simplify the agenda and keep it rather general. That is the position we expressed in the talks, and we still believe it's the right position. Q: Can I follow-up? So, if it's not the agenda, (inaudible) agenda, in natural way you will talk in the actual talks, you are more than welcome to talk about this issue with North Korea? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: There are two points that need to be made here. First, we have not concluded the discussion about the agenda, and so it is still an open subject. No agreement has been reached. But secondly, it has always been our principle that any party was free to raise any subject during the plenary. And so all we are doing is discussing how to describe the table of contents. Q: You confirmed that the North Korean side raised the food issue this morning. Did you observe any change of their attitude (demanding?) food compared with the previous times? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: I don't believe that I want to go into the North Korean presentation. I should leave that to them. But I can say that they have expressed their gratitude for U.S. food aid. Q: Have the North Koreans made it conditional, a plenary session, that they get more food aid and that the U.S. gives them diplomatic recognition and lifts the sanctions? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: No. Q: That would be North Korea's conditions for a plenary? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: No. Q: Didn't you discuss the food issue at all during the preparatory session of this Four-Party Talks? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: We did not. The North Korean side, as we have come to expect, raised food, but this was during the informal contacts, outside of the preparatory session. Q: So you don't think North Korea made the food issue a kind of precondition to enter the plenary session? SENIOR OFFICIAL: No, I don't. Q: Did the North Koreans raise the issue of joint military exercises by the U.S. and South Korea at some point during the preparatory meeting? Did they raise it? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Well, you've caught me a little bit by surprise with that question, so let me think about my answer for one moment (laughter). You may be aware that the United States and the ROK recently announced an annual joint exercise called Ulchi Focus Lens. The North Korean side did raise that exercise, but not as an item for discussion but simply as an example of a point they were trying to make. And the point that I made was that concerns about military issues were precisely the reason that we thought that it would be advisable to enter into these peace talks. Q: I'm still not entirely sure (inaudible) problems, if they're not insisting on food, diplomatic recognition, or sanctions, I still can't see why you need to meet again. As a matter of fact, I apologize again for coming in late. (Inaudible) specifics? I couldn't quite see what was -- SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: We were unable to agree on the agenda for the meeting. Q: I know, but that could mean a number of things. Could you be more specific on that? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Well, the answer is pretty evident, which is that we came here to agree on a number of things, one of which is an agenda. We, in fact, agreed on a number of things but did not agree on the agenda, and therefore our work is not yet done. Q: Is the main problem that the North wants a separate peace treaty with the U.S.? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: The main problem was that there seems to be a difference of approach, namely between whether we would write a very general agenda, which I've already told you the United States prefers, or a more specific agenda. Q: So, until next round talks the week of September 15th, which kind of effort are you going to make in the frame of Four-Party Talks? Are you going lots of rounds of working-level sessions? Also, are you planning to have any kind of bilateral meeting with Mr. Kim Gye Gwan in coming days? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: I believe the questions is, what are we going to do for the next month? Well, I think that we have -- each of the four parties has learned a good deal about the positions of the other parties, and so we will be taking this new knowledge back to our own capitals and working with that new knowledge. And I expect that there will be some working-level contacts during this interval, but there is nothing scheduled right now. Q: And how about a senior-level bilateral meeting with DPRK? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Nothing scheduled. Q: Were you disappointed that you weren't able to agree on an agenda this time? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Of course. I came here to agree. I am disappointed, but I found that the overall atmosphere of the meeting was sufficiently positive and the agreements that we reached were quite satisfactory, and so I leave this not only satisfied that we have accomplished something in this session, but also confident that we will finish the job in the next session. Q: Is it correct that you said the six week period will follow the final preparatory (agreement?) and six weeks from that will be the plenary? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Yes, that's exactly right. Yes. Q: Were there any surprises in the meeting as far as an issue that wasn't seen coming (inaudible)? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: No, there were no surprises of that sort. What we did not know coming into this meeting was whether the addition of a fourth participant would create a whole new set of complications that would make a difficult process even harder. And I'm very happy to report that the opposite occurred. A difficult process became somewhat easier with the addition of the Chinese, who played a very constructive, helpful role. Q: I'd like to clarify one point. You say that six weeks after the agreement. Is it six weeks after the next preparatory talks or (inaudible)? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Six weeks after we have reached a final agreement. Q: It could be the next preparatory meeting and then a next preparatory meeting after that? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: That's right. Q: So it could go on and on? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: That's right. I should tell you again -- some people came in late because they were getting the truth from another delegation (laughter) -- that the principle that we adopted is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, which is normal. Q: I'm sorry, I know you went over this a bit before, but the North Korean delegate said that they wanted to put on the agenda the issue of the withdrawal troops and also the issue of a bilateral treaty between the U.S. and North Korea. Was anybody else in the room talking about putting proposals, specific proposals forward. Or was the idea, as you were saying earlier, to try to make it general, as general as possible. SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Well, the North Korean briefer will -- he who lives by the word will have to die by the word. In fact, they were the only ones who desired a specific agenda. The other delegations each expressed a preference for a more general agenda. Q: What's wrong with having a specific agenda? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Nothing would be wrong with a specific agenda if all parties could agree on it, but you would be a very old person by the time we agreed on a specific agenda (laughter). Q: Can we go to the matter of representation, to clarify that. You said that, I believe, ministers under the direction of the ministers, representatives (inaudible) -- senior officials of each country under the direction of ministers. Can you explain that please? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: There are several things to keep in mind here. One is that all four parties regard the talks as being extremely important, so important that they would naturally require the guidance of the very highest levels. But secondly, it is our expectation that each country will have a delegation headed by a senior person of similar -- perhaps not identical, but similar -- rank to represent the minister in the normal course of these talks, and the ministers would attend as it was agreed, and as it was appropriate, and as they were available. Q: Could there be a cabinet-level or ministerial-level meeting at the end? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: I think that it is possible that there could be meetings at that level at various points. Q: Did North Korea raise the food aid issue at the Four-Party afternoon session too? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: No. Q: Is there a reason why Geneva was chosen? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Skiing (laughter). No, let me give you a reasonable answer to a reasonable question. We discussed a number of sites, and the merits and the demerits of the sites were all thoroughly aired. And what it came down to was that there were only a few sites in which all four countries would be able to support their efforts at about the same level of support and with about the same level of comfort. And although there is more than one city that qualifies by those criteria, Geneva turned out to be the one that all four countries were able to agree on without very much difficulty. Q: This was suggested early on. Who brought it up first? SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: I don't recall. Q: Even if this question was raised already, I need (inaudible). I wonder whether you are happy with today's (inaudible) or disappointed. SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: I had hoped -- I said this earlier, but I will paraphrase myself. I had hoped that we would finish this job in one session, but that was not possible. I don't find that surprising, because it is not at all unusual for the preparations for an important meeting to require more than one session. I felt that what we accomplished was rather considerable, and I left the meeting pleased with the results thus far and optimistic that we would conclude the task in our next session. Last one. Q: Why is the next session in September? Weren't you able to set up a meeting within a (inaudible) of this one? It would continue at a faster pace. SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: Fair enough. For the American side, it would not be at all difficult to come back to New York, even within a day or two. But the delegations who have to come a good deal further felt that next month would be a little more suitable for their needs. OK. Thank you very much. [End of Transcript]