U.S. and Hong Kong (2003)

State Department Briefing, December 8, 2003

Following is a transcript of the briefing:

(begin transcript)

Daily Press Briefing
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC
December 8, 2003

DPB # 169
1:00 p.m. EST

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be back with you. I don't have any statements or announcements today, so I would be glad to take your questions.

Sir.

QUESTION: North Korea. Are you still hopeful that it may be possible to hold six-party talks this month?

MR. BOUCHER: It may be possible to hold six-party talks this month. We'll have to see. We are certainly ready to attend talks without any preconditions. We have been working with our partners in this process, particularly with the Japanese and Koreans, who we had consultations with last week, and the Chinese, who we're in close touch with as well, to try to prepare for another round of six-party talks, including preparing a draft document that might be used at those talks.

But until we hear back, until we find out from the Chinese if they have been able to arrange anything, we won't know exactly when that might take place. At this point, there's nothing set. Whether they can still put it together for this month, or whether it might have to be pushed into early next year, we'll just have to see.

QUESTION: Does your draft document include a reference to North Korea returning to the NPT?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to be able to describe the document in any detail to you at this point other than to say it deals with the process whereby North Korea would completely, verifiably and irreversibly dismantle its nuclear weapons programs, and whereby the six parties could provide security assurances to North Korea as they did that.

Not all elements of that process would necessarily be defined at this point. What role particular organizations or inspectors might have down the road, some of that will be set down the road.

QUESTION: Does it include those three words, "verifiably, completely, irreversibly?"

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I'm not going to write the text for you here or lay out three words out of however many there are in the text. That has been our position. That's the position we still hold to.

QUESTION: Richard, I know, but did you use the words? I mean, is it fair to say you're --

MR. BOUCHER: I did. That's always been our position, and it remains our position.

QUESTION: Right. Mr. Bolton said it the other day. Could -- are you on the same subject, Matt?

QUESTION: Yeah. Are you?

MR. BOUCHER: Please. Go ahead. Please.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Yeah, I have --

QUESTION: Yeah. Are you hopeful, or is there any indication that you might hear back from the Chinese today -- you know, what, with the Premier here today or tomorrow? Or is it -- or do you really not have any idea when they might get -- when they might hear back from the North Koreans on whether this is acceptable?

MR. BOUCHER: I expect we'll be able to -- we'll discuss the issue of North Korea with the Chinese. It's been a matter of great importance to us and to them. Whether they'll have any news today, tomorrow, or coming days or when, is impossible to predict at this point.

QUESTION: Well, okay. So you have -- they haven't given you any indication that something -- that they made, that a response from Pyongyang is imminent or?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would predict that myself, given the past history of these things. It often takes a little bit of time.

QUESTION: Well, okay. But I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking if the Chinese have led you to believe, in any way, that this is close?

MR. BOUCHER: I have no reason to believe that we're expecting a reply immediately, but we'll just have to see. The Chinese are working this one, and when they have something to tell us, I'm sure they will.

QUESTION: But do you know if they have transmitted it yet?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to get into the details of who's transmitted what. We have to be able to conduct some of our diplomacy without giving a minute-by-minute account.

QUESTION: I don't know where the Russians fit in this. But is there was an agreement now procedurally among the Chinese, the U.S., South Korea and Japan that the round should end with a declaration, whatever it says?

MR. BOUCHER: We are working with them to get a document that could be used for the next round. It could be used as a statement for the next round. That is what we see; that appears what the Chinese have been working with all the parties on. We think that would be a good thing. Whether there is agreement with all the parties yet, I don't know.

QUESTION: That was your -- the U.S. position on the first round, too, and it didn't happen. The story today, perhaps -- and this is the point because I thought the U.S. -- correct me if I'm wrong -- but the U.S., South Korea and Japan are virtually -- are close, very close. I mean, their ideas are very, are very coordinated. It's China -- it's China that -- it's not an argument -- but China had a different procedural way to go. Is that true?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, China -- no, I wouldn't' -- I wouldn't describe it that way. We've been working with -- closely with the Chinese, as well. Obviously, we've had intensive consultations repeatedly throughout this process with the Japanese and the South Koreans, our closest allies in the neighborhood.

We've also been working very closely with the Chinese, and the Chinese are trying to fulfill two roles, and have played -- we think, done a very good job of playing those two roles, first of all, as sort of the organizer trying to get the talks organized; and, second of all, supporting, naturally, Chinese interests, China's own interests in a denuclearized Peninsula. So China has its two cents worth to put in on its own, as well as a role in helping put this together. And China, I think, has been playing that role very actively and very well.

QUESTION: Denuclearized Peninsula is the Chinese position, is it? The U.S. --

MR. BOUCHER: It's the position that I think the Chinese put out that was a consensus from the last talks.

QUESTION: But is it the U.S. position, or does the U.S. want more than that, dismantling the whole program, or is there a difference?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- if you want a denuclearized Peninsula, you've got to dismantle the whole program, right?

QUESTION: Well, you've got to get rid of blueprints, too, and some -- all right.

MR. BOUCHER: We want to see the program completely, verifiably and irreversibly dismantled. If, somehow, that goes farther than a denuclearized Peninsula, I guess that's our position, but I fail to see too much of a difference.

QUESTION: Are we communicating with the Russians on this at all? I mean, I don't hear about consultations with Russia.

MR. BOUCHER: We've been in touch with the Russians from time to time. If I remember correctly, it was about two weeks ago, I think, when they had a Vice Foreign Minister here. Right? Mr. Losyukov. November? November 24th. There you go. So we've been keeping in close touch with the Russians; just in the last few days it's been mostly others.

Okay. Mr. Ota.

QUESTION: Maybe you don't want to go into it either, but the two major newspaper, American newspaper, use the same wording, the "coordinate." Can you elaborate on that or could you give us any --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't elaborate on any particular words. I think I've used the word myself from here before, if I remember correctly.

Teri.

QUESTION: Can you explain if the U.S. is willing to go to these talks simply with an assurance that you would be willing to then, later, I mean, working on a document that would say you are willing to work on security guarantees for North Korea later?

I think we've talked about whether you're working on a document that would lay out the security guarantees, but from what the White House said earlier today, it sounded like you were working on a document that would tell North Korea you are then willing to work on the security guarantees.

Can you explain that?

MR. BOUCHER: I can't go into too much details about what it might say in the document. I certainly support and agree with what the White House said in describing the document, that the document would outline our readiness to prepare a statement on multilateral security assurances as we emphasize the importance of North Korea committing to the complete and verifiable -- I would add irreversible as well -- elimination of their nuclear program.

QUESTION: As opposed to outlining those assurances themselves?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I can't program every step of the way of what would -- we would hope be a coordinated series of steps. But the intention is to go to the next round of talks and begin addressing these issues, to begin addressing these issues in a way that's appropriate for the beginning of the process.

QUESTION: I don't know if you already said this, but when you say that you want a document to go into the next round of talks, is this document going to be showed to the North Koreans in advance, that it's something that they'd be willing to work with?

MR. BOUCHER: It would be a draft statement for the talks. You'd have to ask the Chinese when and how they might show it to the North Koreans. But we would expect to get commitments from them in terms of the talks, in terms of the documents that might be issued, so we would assume that it would be shown there.

QUESTION: So, I mean, to what extent is this whole thing scripted? I mean, you know what you're willing to go into in advance with your document, and the Koreans pretty much know what you're going to say in the document, so why do you need to have talks, then? Can you just sign -- have a signing ceremony?

MR. BOUCHER: You know, strangely enough, if you were to prepare a meeting, you cannot only accomplish what you prepared, but there's a certain amount of back-and-forth, there may be a certain amount of discussion, there may be a certain amount of additional discussion and negotiation about how some of these things might work. So we actually do find it useful to sit down and talk to people, and we would look forward to six-party talks based on any understandings that can be reached in advance about draft statements.

Sir.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

QUESTION: China. Do you have anything on the Institute for International Religious Freedom canceling a trip to China because the Chinese wouldn't let them hold meetings in Hong Kong?

MR. BOUCHER: I believe they have put out a statement.

QUESTION: Not as of 11:30, but --

MR. BOUCHER: I think by 12:30 they have, or at least by 1:00 they did.

QUESTION: I was here.

MR. BOUCHER: So echoing, I think, what they said in their statement -- at least the one that I saw -- I would agree with them that we're all very disappointed that unacceptable conditions imposed by the Chinese Government have caused the Commission to postpone its planned travel to China.

This is the second time this year that the Commission has been forced to postpone or cancel a planned visit because of conditions raised by Beijing on the Commission's activities in Hong Kong. China has several times stated its willingness to host the group and we call on the Chinese Government to move forward with hosting arrangements that are acceptable to both sides.

QUESTION: Have you communicated this -- has the State Department communicated all of the Chinese Government on this?

MR. BOUCHER: We have been in touch over time with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing and with the Chinese Ambassador in Washington about our concerns.

QUESTION: But have you been -- have you been in touch about this particular episode?

MR. BOUCHER: About this particular trip, yes, and about the conditions that were being attached, yes.

QUESTION: Yeah -- I mean, about their refusal to let them meet in Hong Kong?

MR. BOUCHER: About the conditions that were being attached to this trip, yes. Yeah.

QUESTION: And what did you say to them?

MR. BOUCHER: We said we were very concerned about such conditions, it was important for the Commission to be able to do their work.

QUESTION: Richard, is this something that could rise to the level of being -- of a conversation with the Premier?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. It's been an ongoing matter of discussion with the Chinese Government and certainly our interest in human rights and having an exchange on human rights may come up, but not necessarily -- I'm not sure whether this particular trip would come up or not.

QUESTION: How big a concern is religious freedom in China?

MR. BOUCHER: You could see it in our religious freedom reports. There have been significant concerns that we've raised in the past and continue to hold.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Richard?

MR. BOUCHER: George.

QUESTION: Also on China, there are reports that an American vessel is being detained at a Chinese port after colliding a week ago in a fog, apparently in Chinese territorial waters. Do you have anything on that?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything on that. I'll have to look into it for you.

Yeah, Joel.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

QUESTION: Okay back to the Chinese Premier Wen's visit to the States?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: This is the first visit of the Chinese new leaders, and it seems like he has received a much higher level welcome than the last Premier. In terms of U.S.-China relation, do you think it's a good sign?

Second, in addition to North Korea, Taiwan issues is also a priority of the meeting with Secretary Powell tonight, and also the President Bush tomorrow. How will you talk with this issue with Mr. Wen tonight and tomorrow?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, first of all, I'd point out that President Bush has already had a chance to meet with President Hu in Bangkok, so it's not our first exposure to the new leaders. And I believe that President Hu came before he was in office, right?

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: But that's not -- before --

MR. BOUCHER: Do I have that right? It was before..

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: But still, we've met him in China, we've met him before here, and other places, so it's not the first exposure to the new leadership.

In terms of Premier Wen's visit, I'd have to check the protocol on how we handled previous visits, but we have made very clear that we believe our relations with China are excellent. We've found many areas of cooperation with China and we'd look to encourage and expand those areas of cooperation.

I'm sure the issue of Taiwan will come up. The Chinese are quite clear on our position. They understand what we've said before and we'll be happy to make very clear once again our One China policy.

Yeah, sir.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

(The briefing was concluded at 1:40 p.m.)

(end transcript)