State Department Spokesman on Human Rights Policy

Because of time constraints, all I can give you for now is some quotes from yesterday’s press briefing, below the fold. Thanks to a reader for forwarding. Money quote: “We’ve made clear, going back several months, we’re not going to pay North Korea for coming back to the Six-Party process.” On the role of human rights in the six-party talks, however, the answers were vague to the point of being non-responsive.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2010

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

1:17 p.m. EST

MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon and welcome to the Department of State. Just before coming down, I checked weather.com and noted that where we are in the nation’s capital is roughly 31 degrees and the Secretary a short time ago left Washington for Honolulu where it’s 68 degrees. I suppose the operative question is: Why aren’t the rest of us on the airplane flying to warmer climes? But the Secretary has departed Washington for her lengthy trip to the Asia Pacific region. Her first stop is in Honolulu where she will give an important speech on the Asian Pacific security architecture and will also meet with the Japanese foreign minister tomorrow.

We have a number of key leaders here at the Department traveling this week. Deputy Secretary Jim Steinberg departs Washington this afternoon for Colombia and Peru. He’ll meet, I believe, tomorrow with Colombian President Uribe as the first step in that trip. Under Secretary Bill Burns will travel to Moscow this week on the 13th and the 14th to discuss our bilateral relationship to focus on the ongoing Bilateral Presidential Commission work that is being done, but also will talk about arms control, Iran, North Korea, and economic cooperation. He will then travel on the 15 ““ or he’ll travel for meetings on the 15th with his EU political counterparts and will also meet with Foreign Minister Moratinos while he’s in Madrid.

Today, Ambassador Robert King, our Special Envoy for North Korea and Human Rights, met with his ““ the Korean Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan, National Security Adviser Kim Sung-hwan, and Minister for Unification Hyun In-taek, Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace Ambassador Wi Sung-la ““ lac, I’m sorry ““ and Ambassador-at-Large for Human Rights Ambassador Jhe Seong-Ho. He also met with North Korean experts and North Korean defector leaders. He emphasized that strong U.S.-Korean coordination is needed on all aspects of North Korean policy, especially human rights. He will be in Tokyo later this week.

[….]

QUESTION: On North Korea, reported by North Korean military broadcast this morning, North Korea will not be attending the Six-Party Talks unless United States agree peace treaty with the ““ North Korea. What is the U.S. position on that?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think if you go back to the discussions last month that Ambassador Steve Bosworth and Ambassador Sung Kim had in Pyongyang, I think both sides reaffirmed the importance of the Six-Party process and the significance of the September 2005 joint statement. Now if you go down the joint statement, there are a number of elements outlined there. It talks about denuclearization, the establishment of a peace regime, normalization of relations among all of the parties concerned and economic and energy cooperation.

What we’ve made clear is that we are ““ if North Korea says yes, it comes back to the Six-Party process. If it makes affirmative steps towards denuclearization, then a wide range of other opportunities open up. But the first ““ the key here is that North Korea has to come back to us, say yes, come back to the Six-Party process, start working on the ““ its obligations under the joint communiqué ““ joint statement, and then we are perfectly willing to have other kinds of discussions.

QUESTION: But the North Korea demands peace treaty with the United States before the Six-Party Talks begin. What is the U.S. position? You think the Six-Party is —

MR. CROWLEY: Our position is that we see ““ we want to see North Korea come back to the Six-Party process. Remember, if you want to have a negotiation regarding an armistice, we are not the only party to that prospective negotiation. So that’s expressly why we think having a multilateral forum like the Six-Party process is important. So right now, the issue before North Korea is saying yes, coming back to the Six-Party process, and then we can begin to march down the list of issues that we have beginning with the nuclear issue.

QUESTION: P.J., on North Korea, the statement also says that they want the U.S. to drop all sanctions, or they want the international community to drop sanctions before they’ll come back to Six-Party Talks. So I’m wondering, is there any possibility of that and —

MR. CROWLEY: We’ve made clear, going back several months, we’re not going to pay North Korea for coming back to the Six-Party process.

QUESTION: So, no, you’re not going to drop sanctions. So do you see anything different —

MR. CROWLEY: Well —

QUESTION: — in this? Before they come back, is what I mean.

MR. CROWLEY: Right.

QUESTION: And do you see anything different in this statement, then, other than the tone? They say that they’re politely or whatever the word was ““ that they’re respectfully asking for this. So the tone seemed much more polite. Is there anything else you see differently?

MR. CROWLEY: We appreciate the fact that we had a constructive conversation with North Korea last month, but the issue in front of North Korea is (inaudible).

QUESTION: Is there any reaction on Israel’s plans to —

QUESTION: Can we stay on North Korea?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Another on North Korea?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: P.J., they obviously have said this several times before, but the U.S. position has always been since 2005 that any discussion on a peace treaty comes fairly late in the game. There are several things that the North Koreans need to do —

MR. CROWLEY: Right.

QUESTION: — before ““ so this is ““ this is ““ I think it was phase three, and we are barely at the end of phase one and we now have rolled back. So is it ““ can ““ I mean, we were almost at the end of phase one and then things happened since then. My point is this was another administration that came out with it. So is it still the U.S. position that a peace treaty cannot be discussed until, verifiably and irreversibly, the North Koreans have indeed ended their program?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, I just outlined some ““ a sequence here. We want them back in the Six-Party process. We want to see them take affirmative steps towards denuclearization. But with ““ but once they’re back within the process, once we have confidence that they’re meeting their obligations, then a wide range of other possible discussions open up.

QUESTION: So the point is: North Korea come back to the Six-Party Talks. If you have any issues to discuss, that’s the place to do it; right?

MR. CROWLEY: Precisely.

Here comes the part about Robert King and human rights:

QUESTION: Okay. And can I ““ I’m sorry, I have additional ““ another one on North Korea, especially ““ actually on Ambassador King’s comments today. He’s saying things like how awful North Korea is and what a terrible place it is. I recall John Bolton was saying those same things a few years ago and he got hammered for potentially being an impediment to negotiations. Do you view talk like this that he engaged in Seoul today as potentially perhaps detrimental to anything that diplomacy might be trying to do?

MR. CROWLEY: Not at all. I mean, we ““ it’s expressly why we have the human rights envoy. This is not an either/or situation. We want to see denuclearization in North Korea. We want to see North Korea move down a different path, integrate itself into the region, become a more constructive player. But we also want to see North Korea improve its dreadful human rights record, and that is expressly the reason why we have an envoy. He’s in the region. He’s making it clear to North Korea that we place great attention on this human rights agenda, and we’ll continue to press them to improve their performance.

QUESTION: P.J., how many other human rights envoys, specifically for other countries, do we have?

MR. CROWLEY: I have no idea. But —

QUESTION: It’s just kind of interesting that there’s one specifically for North Korea.

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we ““ it’s why we —

QUESTION: (Inaudible) mandated by Congress?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is it ““ so that has existed for a long time?

MR. CROWLEY: It has existed for some time. And I don’t think he’s the first person to occupy this position.

QUESTION: No. In fact, the last person who occupied the position took some pretty ““ made some pretty strong statements about the ““ basically the futility of the Six-Party process. Do you think the ““ (laughter) ““ that would be Mr. Lefkowitz —

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t think that —

QUESTION: — as you may remember.

MR. CROWLEY: — Robert King shares that view.

QUESTION: Same subject.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: So are you still willing to have another bilateral talks with North Koreans to resume the Six-Party Talks or you’re just waiting for them to say okay, we’re coming back?

MR. CROWLEY: We want to see them say yes, and then set up a meeting, get the process restarted and see what progress can be made.

QUESTION: So are you prepared to reach out to them and say, okay, why don’t we have another bilateral talks?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, I think when we left Pyongyang last month, I think it’s our view the ball is in North Korea’s court. We’d like to see them say yes. We’d like to see a Six-Party meeting take place. I won’t predict at this point ““ there are a number of ways of getting that done.

QUESTION: Have you ever heard back from the Swedes about Mr. Park?

MR. CROWLEY: Not yet.

QUESTION: On Robert King. Ambassador Kim said the United States will raise human rights issues in the Six-Party Talks.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, the human rights issues ““ I mean, and we’re not the only ones that have human rights concerns ““ South Korea does, Japan does. So I mean, in any kind of relationship that North Korea’s going to have, either with its neighbors or with the United States, human rights is going to be a significant part of that agenda. And to the extent that, at some point in time, once North Korea’s taken the steps that we’ve outlined, if there is a serious discussion about normalization with the United States, we would expect that North Korea ““ that human rights will continue to be part of that discussion, and I would not be surprised if other countries share our view.

Are we done with North Korea?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) will the United States bring human rights issue to Six-Party Talks?

MR. CROWLEY: I think anyone who’s having a discussion with North Korea will have human rights on that agenda. I’m not ruling anything in or out. I mean, obviously, human rights is a part ““ is a significant part of any discussion that we’re going to have with North Korea in the future.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

[….]

(The briefing was concluded at 1:59 p.m.)