Anju Links for 24 Sept 08
YOU DON’T SAY! (Pt. 1): “Nuke Deal Not Likely by End of Bush Term.” The interesting take away from Nicholas Kralev’s piece is that the North Korean efforts to reconstitute their plutonium program are not focused on the old 5-MW reactor, but on the fuel fabrication plant. That would be consistent with my pet theory that the North Koreans are content to retire the old 5-MW model and start up the new 50-MW reactor instead. This also provided some amusement:
The North Koreans have said that Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator, promised them removal from the State Department’s blacklist of state sponsors of terrorism once they submit a declaration of their nuclear activities. Mr. Hill has neither confirmed nor denied that claim, saying only that the North knows what it needs to do. The Bush administration insists on reaching an agreement on a mechanism to verify the declaration before taking Pyongyang off the list. [Washington Times]
The North Koreans are hardly in a position to call anyone out for deception, but let’s face it: Hill has been deceptive with the rest of us, too. This entire deal has been built around glaring ambiguities; still, I have trouble believing that the North Koreans are innocent lambs who simply overlooked them out of audacious hope. OFK reader Bruce Klingner of the Heritage foundation is quoted as saying that the talks are now “firmly deadlocked.” I hope he’s right, and at this point, I’d say he probably is, but never overestimate the U.S. State Department.
HILL CAME OUT TO WORK THE PRESS TODAY: I’ve pasted some transcripts below the fold. Hill is obviously a good schmoozer with a sympathetic audience, but I don’t think his “temporary setback” spin is fooling anyone at this point. I see most of the media as torn between their personal and ideological sympathy for Hill and their eagerness to declare any Bush policy a failure.
WHEN THE NEW YORK TIMES SAYS that speculation about Kim Jong Il’s health “thrives in [a] factual vacuum,” I think it’s things like this that they have in mind. Of course, Kim Jong Il is going to die of something within the next few years, and none of his kids looks capable of taking over. I could add one more blog post to all of the predictions about heirs and juntas, but I’m content to link to what I said about this subject a year and a half ago (also, my pictures are funnier). The latest word is that His Porcine Majesty is recovering. It’s good that we can doubt these reports, which I prefer to ruling out the existence of God, believing that He ignores our prayers, or wondering why He likes to watch us suffer.
OH, AND DON’T ASK YOUR NORTH KOREAN TOUR GUIDE about those rumors. Still, I wonder if the fact that Pyongyang seems “more festive than usual” means that plenty of North Koreans believe the rumors are true.
JAPAN’S BRAND-NEW PRIME MINISTER, TARO ASO, is calling for better contingency planning for Kim’s demise or a crisis in Korea. Like Lee Myung Bak, Aso compensates for some serious personal flaws with a much more sensible policy toward the North. Another story about the “colorful” Aso here, although I’m not sure I agree that his penchant for gaffes is a strong point. Just ask Biden how that business model is working for him.
SOMEHOW, I DON’T FIND THIS COMFORTING:
A total of 74 foreigners were arrested or expelled by the National Intelligence Service over last five years in 19 terror-related cases, on charges of plotting attacks, goading anti-American sentiment and spying on the U.S. Forces Korea, according to classified documents released Sunday. Some of them allegedly had connections to al-Qaeda. ‘We obtained secret information that some Muslim extremists planned an attack on U.S. Army bases in Korea, so we expelled the people related to the plot,’ an NIS official said.
I seldom went to Itaewon’s “entertainment” district before or after 9/11 — it sits directly below Seoul’s main mosque and concentration of Muslim guest workers — without wondering about things like this.
YOU DON’T SAY! (Pt. 2): “Special Law on Prostitution Proving Ineffective.” My first home in Korea was in Icheon-Dong, which meant that every day on the way to the Yongsan Main Gate, I’d pass Yongsan Station and the red-light district directly across the road. When I went back in 2006, the old station had been replaced by a huge, shiny new E-Mart, but more established forms of commerce were still going on across the road, just as they had for decades … and directly adjacent to a police station. At most, this will just do to prostitution in Korea what it did to it in Japan and move it to more discreet venues.
IRON PIPES, 500,000 WON; BILLING THE TAXPAYERS FOR THEM, PRICELESS: The Korean government admits it has almost no idea how “civic groups” are spending their government subsidies. As I’ve pointed out previously, some of those civic groups have regularly instigated politically motivated violence. Groups that fail to control violence by their members should never receive subsidies, but really, the whole idea of subsidizing political speech and association is pernicious. The power to subsidize is also the power to censor, to manipulate, to propagandize, and inevitably, the power to discriminate against speech the state doesn’t like.
SOME OFF-TOPIC LEVITY: Maybe not the most thoughtful South Park, but probably the funniest. The first time I saw this ending, I laughed until my stomach hurt. Warning: tasteless and probably not safe for work.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
11:30 a.m. EDT
MR. WOOD: Good morning, everyone. Welcome. I don’t have anything for you, so we’ll go right to your questions.
QUESTION: Well, we don’t have any questions.
MR. WOOD: All right. Let’s go.
QUESTION: Well (inaudible) the economic crisis: Can you dredge up any reaction from foreign governments that you’ve received privately — go at it, you’re doing a great job, thanks for trying, we don’t see it that way ““ anything in the way of commentary from some of our best friends and maybe not friends?
MR. WOOD: No, I don’t have anything, Barry, in terms of private comments that other leaders may have made to, you know, the Secretary or the President. But obviously, everybody is seized with the financial crisis and the Congress and the White House are working on this, you know, as we speak and I’ll just let it stay at that.
Charley?
QUESTION: Anything on the suggestion that there should be a joint Afghanistan-Pakistan-U.S. strike force that could operate on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border?
MR. WOOD: Yeah. We’ve seen the report ““ reports on it. I think we’ve also been informed about it and we are obviously taking a good look at it and see– and we’re going to analyze it and see where we go from here on it. But I don’t have any further comment on it at this point. We’ll probably have something to say, you know, later on it, once we’ve done a thorough analysis of it
QUESTION: Later today?
MR. WOOD: I wouldn’t count on later today.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. WOOD: Steve?
QUESTION: So what’s your reaction to the release of prisoners in Burma? Apparently, even the longest held prisoner was released today.
MR. WOOD: Yeah. We’ve heard that the Burmese regime has released — I believe it’s 9,000 prisoners. I don’t have the actual number of political prisoners that are part of that, although I understand that 76-year-old Win Tin, a journalist who’s been a political prisoner for, I think, almost 20 years, was released. And that’s long overdue, but a very positive development. So we continue to call on the Burmese regime to release all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi and to move the country down the path toward democracy. It’s something we’ve been calling on for quite some time.
Please.
QUESTION: If I can ask a question about Afghanistan and the Status of Forces Agreement?
MR. WOOD: Sure.
QUESTION: SOFA, according to the Afghans, hasn’t been changed since 2004. And they’re expected to propose this week that home raids no longer be conducted unilaterally when the women are present — by the U.S., when women are present, getting tribal leaders more involved and what have you, a greater sharing of intelligence by U.S. authorities with the Afghans. I’m wondering what changes you think need to take place with SOFA. I’m pretty sure President Bush is going to meet with President Karzai this week.
MR. WOOD: Well, I certainly don’t want to get into those kinds of issues right now. Certainly — I know the Secretary is meeting with President Karzai later. There will be discussions between the two governments on the SOFA, but I really don’t want to get into the specifics of that right now. It wouldn’t be appropriate.
QUESTION: Could you (inaudible) about how this is different or differences between this SOFA agreement and then Iraq’s?
MR. WOOD: I’d rather not do that, if you don’t mind.
Please.
QUESTION: What could you tell us about President Bush making a call to the Dalai Lama this morning?
MR. WOOD: Yeah. My understanding is that the President called the Dalai Lama to inquire about his health. As you probably know, the Dalai Lama recently canceled a couple of overseas trips. I believe he’s been suffering from exhaustion. So the President just wanted to, you know, see how he was doing. But for further details, I’d refer you to the White House.
QUESTION: So to follow up on that, I heard the conversation lasted for about 15 minutes. Do you know whether they have talk about any of the issues from the ongoing dialogue between the Dalai Lama’s representative and the Chinese Government or for that ““ where the President has expressed what is U.S. policy on that matter?
MR. WOOD: Well, again, I don’t have the substance of that conversation beyond what I’ve said, but I would refer you to the White House to get more details on the rest of the conversation.
Any other questions?
QUESTION: Have you heard anything from Cuba in response to your latest hurricane relief offer?
MR. WOOD: No. We’ve made four previous offers of assistance to the Cuban Government, all of which have been declined. You know, I don’t know what more it is that we can say. We are trying to respond to what we believe is a humanitarian crisis in Cuba and the Cuban Government continues to reject our offers of assistance. And so you’d have to ask the Cuban Government why it continues to do that.
QUESTION: Is there anything new today, from your point of view, on North Korea? Any new reports of ““ of changes at Yongbyon or any plans for meetings on that subject with senior U.S. officials?
MR. WOOD: There are discussions going on up in New York. The Secretary will be meeting with representatives of the other parties ““ parties to the Six-Party framework. I don’t have anything new. Chris Hill, of course, I think, spoke to the press at length yesterday. And we continue to view what’s going on on the ground in Yongbyon with serious concern, but I don’t have any further updates from yesterday.
QUESTION: Are they all getting together at once in this ““ in the, say, five or Six-Party framework, or ““
MR. WOOD: I don’t believe so. I certainly wouldn’t rule anything out, but I’d probably refer you to the party up in New York to see if ““ see what the meeting schedule is.
Right here.
QUESTION: Was there a request rejected from the Iranian President Ahmadinejad to travel to California for some kind of trip? There was a report out of Iran saying ““ claiming that.
MR. WOOD: That’s the first I’ve heard of that. I haven’t heard of that before, no.
QUESTION: Back to the Six-Party Talks for a moment?
MR. WOOD: Sure.
QUESTION: I’ve read that Sung Kim traveled up to New York. What sort of discussions will he be participating in?
MR. WOOD: Well, he’ll ““ he, I believe, is in New York and he will ““ I think he’s participating in a number of the discussions that Chris Hill is having. He will likely be — although I don’t know this for a fact; you need to talk to the folks up in New York ““ that he will probably be involved in some of the conversations that the Secretary will have with other governments in the Six-Party framework. But I don’t have anything beyond that in terms of, you know, what his schedule is.
Charley.
QUESTION: On Libya, any update on the special fund to fulfill terrorism claims?
MR. WOOD: I checked on that yesterday and no money has been delivered into the fund.
Anything else? Please.
QUESTION: To follow up on my question: What has been the State Department policy on the dialogue process between the Dalai Lama’s representative and the Chinese Government?
MR. WOOD: Well, we’ve all along encouraged the Chinese Government to have talks with the Dalai Lama and that policy remains. The Dalai Lama is an important religious figure, and we think it’s important for the Chinese and the Dalai Lama and his representatives to continue to have a dialogue. It’s important to resolve their differences.
QUESTION: I think you said the President spoke to him. You’ve deferred questions — referred questions to the White House, but since you raise the point that the President knew he was ““ had some exhaustion and wanted to see how he’s doing, can you say how the President found him in this telephone conversation? Was he ““ did he seem to be all right?
MR. WOOD: To be honest with you, Barry, I don’t know. I’m not familiar with the substance of the phone call beyond what I ““ what I mentioned. But the White House might be able to provide you with some more detail.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. WOOD: Okay. Anything else? Okay. Thank you very much.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. WOOD: You’re welcome.
(The briefing was concluded at 11:38 p.m.)
# # #
On-the-Record Briefing on Secretary Rice’s Meeting With the South Korean Foreign Minister
Christopher Hill, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Waldorf-Astoria
New York City
September 22, 2008
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. All right, everybody. What I would like to do is structure the briefing the following way so we don’t have to keep Assistant Secretary Hill here for all the rest of the other meetings that took place with people outside the EAP region. I thought that Chris could talk a little bit about the Secretary’s meeting with the South Korean Foreign Minister, take a few questions about his region, the Six-Party process, then we can move on to any other questions about any of the Secretary’s other meetings.
So why don’t we ““ Chris, I don’t ““ if you have a brief overview, perhaps, of the Secretary’s meeting with the South Korean Foreign Minister?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Okay. Well, let me just say that, you know, the Six-Party process has had its difficult moments in the past, and we’re certainly experiencing another one now. It’s a time when I think we need to work very closely with all our partners, and I think the Secretary’s meeting with Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan is very much part of that process.
Obviously, we want to get through this ““ what’s proving to be this very difficult second phase. In particular, we need to get through a verification protocol so that the aim of a verifiable declaration is actually achieved. The — as you know, the North Koreans provided a declaration, but unless it’s verifiable we only really have half a loaf here.
So I think the Secretary had a wide-ranging, good discussion with the Korean Foreign Minister. She’ll be talking to other participants in the Six Parties. Because of the disablement, we have time; that is, time ahead to continue to work this issue. We don’t expect any sort of dramatic developments, you know, in a matter of days. I think all of you saw the announcement from Vienna about the North Korean request to have the IAEA break seals. I would refer you to the IAEA on further details of that.
But you know, clearly it’s a difficult moment for the Six-Party process and it’s a time we’re really going to have to work very closely with our other partners.
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Why don’t we take some questions.
QUESTION: Isn’t it more than just a difficult moment? I mean —
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: You mean more than a moment or more than just difficult? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Both. I mean this has been going on ““ this has been going on ““ or the North Koreans, to use Sean’s description of it, the negative progression ““ is that what you said today? The negative progression from where we were in June and the blowing up of the cooling tower, things have gone progressively backwards.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yeah, I wouldn’t say they’ve gone backwards since June. I think the problem we’ve had is in trying to get a verifiable declaration; that is, we have a declaration from them but we don’t have the verification protocol that needs to go along with that. And quite frankly, it’s ““ we’ve had a difficult time in the past month. Now, this corresponds, of course, to, I think, widely reported issues involving the health of the leadership there. How much it relates to that, it’s hard to tell at this point. But we feel we need to keep our focus on the verification protocol.
As you know, we had some good discussions of the principles of that when we were in Beijing earlier in the summer. We have some agreement on what the overall elements of a verification protocol are. But what we’d like to do is really to define better and to elaborate those elements so that when we get on with verification there won’t be any misunderstandings of what verification entails.
So yeah, it’s a tough process. It’s not about what you write on a piece of paper. It’s about what you do on the ground. It’s about, you know, going into nuclear facilities in a way we haven’t done before. And it involves proving out, you know, figures involving the amount of fissile material that they have. So we’re in a degree of detail that we haven’t had before.
And I’ve said many times before, you know, the more you go into these Six-Party issues, the more difficult it gets. But we’ve been able to get through tough spots before, and let’s see if we can get through this one.
QUESTION: Chris, you have people on the ground. Can you confirm that they actually broke the seals?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, I’m not in a position to do that. That was ““ I think the news came out of Vienna this morning, and so I don’t have any information of what actually happened on the ground in Yongbyon. You know, with the time change, I think it was soon ““ evening in Yongbyon by the time it was the afternoon in Vienna.
QUESTION: So you didn’t get in touch with —
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: We have no confirmation that this process has moved forward. But I would direct you to the IAEA for that because this has to do with IAEA’s seals and cameras.
QUESTION: Chris, when you say that ““ about the verification protocol, do you think that the North Koreans just don’t actually want to verify what they wrote on the piece of paper and they can’t? Or is that why this is all being held up? Or are they just playing their normal brinksmanship to get more from you? I mean, what do you think that this is all about?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, I mean, obviously, you’re going to have ask them. It looks like ““ you know, they understand the need for verification, the fact that they provided 18,000 pages of documents is a sign that they understand the need for verification. I think to some extent the issue is the scope of the verification, how far ““ how much verification needs to be accomplished.
We believe that ““ I mean, they have agreed to all three elements of verification; that is, documents, interviews, and site visits. But we need these really elaborated in some detail. We also need a process by which, if there are sites that are in addition to the ones already known, if there are additional sites, we need a means by which to work with the North Koreans on identifying these and ultimately making visits.
Now, this has come up in North Korean public statements as a desire on our part to “conduct house-to-house searches,” which is, of course, not what we’re interested in. We’re simply interested in the means, according to international standards, really, because I want to emphasize this is not the first time someone has had to verify a nuclear declaration.
We just need the means to make sure that what they’ve declared to us is something we can verify.
QUESTION: Ambassador Hill, you said that ““ you mentioned the health of Kim Jong-il and the reports of the health. Who is making the decisions now as far as you can tell, and have the Chinese been able to provide some more insight into the decision making in the past month?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: You know, I’m not really in a position to answer that. I think ““ you know, how decisions are made in North Korea is always a bit of an opaque process and certainly this month has been no exception to that. But clearly, we are seeing a, you know, a tough line in the last month from them.
But again, I want to emphasize we are, you know, in touch with them through the New York channel as we have been. So I would rather you think of this as a very rough-and-tumble moment in the negotiation process.
QUESTION: Chris, you said that you wanted to work closely with your partners to try and get through this difficult patch.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Is that what I said? Well —
QUESTION: Well, my words is difficult patch. But are you hoping ““ are you planning to go to Beijing soon and have a Six-Party meeting or ““ I mean, what are you planning to do with the process?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think we’re going to be consulting with our partners to see what the best way forward is and whether ““ you know, if there’s a ““ if the ““ in the opinion of the chair of the process, the Chinese, they want to get us all together, that’s fine with us. So we’ll have to see on the basis of these consultations. And you know, some of them will be this week. I think we’ll have additional ones next week. And we’ll have a pretty good idea of what all our partners are thinking.
I must say what is gratifying is the fact that our ““ you know, and certainly in having telephone conversations with our partners, there’s a general, you know, consensus on what we need to do. And I think everyone is trying to advocate the notion of, you know, being patient, working through the issue, and trying to get there.
QUESTION: Where are the consultations going to be?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, I mean, part of the process is being done here, right here in New York. I’ll look forward to speaking to some of our partners later this week. And we’ll ““ we’ll have to take it from there. But we want to make sure that everybody is well knit up on the issue.
MR. MCCORMACK: The Secretary has dinner with the Chinese Foreign Minister tonight as well.
QUESTION: Chris, can you make any judgment on whether the problems that you’re currently experiencing are related more to health issues or more to it’s getting close to the end of the Administration and maybe they’re going to wait it out?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I’m not in a position to judge the issue with respect to health issues. With respect to how close to the end of the Administration, et cetera, our soundings from the North Koreans continue to be that they want to reach an agreement with the ““ in the negotiating context that they’ve got now. So I’m not sure I would assume that it’s because of the U.S. election calendar. I don’t think the North Koreans are looking at a future administration and thinking somehow that would be easier or whatever. I think they understand that the best time to do it is to get it done now.
I would really suggest to you, you know, look more ““ look at the issue of the verification regime and the fact that North Korea is not a country that’s given to opening itself up on issues, and so they want to make sure that the verification is consistent with what they’re prepared to do. And you know, that’s just part of a tough negotiation.
QUESTION: Have you asked them, like outright, about his health ““ the North Koreans, through the New York channel? Are you —
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: You mean the way a CNN reporter would, they would just blurt it out like that? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah. We heard some things about Kim Jong-il. How’s he —
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Wait, let me get this down. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I’m serious. Have you point blank asked the North Koreans, “We heard he’s sick, what’s the deal?” I mean —
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, again, we’ve been in touch with the North Koreans. I’m not prepared to go into the details of what we talk about.
QUESTION: Chris, Fox has heard from two agencies that, in fact, at Yongbyon the re-installment process, or the reprocessing part, is actually complete. This is why they want to break the seals. They want to do operational tests. Can you ““ have you got any comment on that?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, as I understand, any restarting of a ““ of the reprocessing facility would require rather extensive testing. You’d have to test what you’ve put back together and you’d have to test a lot of things. So I don’t think there’s any immediate potential for restarting the thing. But obviously, these reports are, you know, ones that we take very seriously.
QUESTION: But we’ve heard from our officials that it’s a matter of weeks before they can start reprocessing the spent fuel.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think when we looked at the overall issue of, you know, how long it would take, our calculations were that it would take weeks for the reprocessing and months and perhaps ““ overall, it would take over a year for the overall plants, but that reprocessing was one that could be accomplished in a matter of very few months, depending on how the equipment operates, et cetera. So they’re not ready to reprocess now, but certainly they have taken the machinery out and put it back together. But I would emphasize you need to talk to the IAEA about the details of that.
QUESTION: Well, aren’t you concerned about this?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Am I concerned about this? Yes, we are concerned about this. That’s a quote. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Did you say ““ you had mentioned earlier that there was some concern possibly of additional sites ““ can you be more specific about that. Have you (inaudible)?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, it’s not a question of particular sites. It’s a question of an overall process. And you have ““ when you have verification, do you only look at sites that are mentioned early in the beginning of the process, or do you have a means to look at additional sites as they become ““ as issues come up? And so what is the means for that?
How do you do it consistent with a country’s sovereignty? Questions like that. There are international ways, international standards, for how this is done, and we would hope to try to get through that.
I must say in the last month it’s been a little difficult to work through some of these issues. I know there’s a lot of speculation as to why it’s been difficult. But rather than speculate, rather than join in that speculation, what we’ve really tried to do is to address these difficulties on the basis of the substance.
QUESTION: Is there any desire to see other sites other than Yongbyon at this point?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, again, this has always been a process. And what we have looked at first in the declaration is the issue of the plutonium production, the issue of Yongbyon, with the understanding that we keep the door open for additional elements as we work those through.
MR. MCCORMACK: All right, let’s take just a couple more questions here.
QUESTION: Today’s meeting with ““ Secretary’s meeting with Foreign Minister Yu, have they discussed about the future energy assistance which is linked to the disablement process?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yes. Yes, there was a discussion of the energy assistance.
QUESTION: And how was —
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, you weren’t there and there’s a reason you weren’t there. (Laughter.) It was a diplomatic discussion, but I can assure you that issue was discussed.
QUESTION: And can you confirm that the assistance is linked to the procedure, the disablement procedure?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, again, I wouldn’t get into the details of it except to say that clearly, as we’ve done, as we have provided HFO, this is indeed linked to the issue of the operation of Yongbyon.
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Why don’t we give you the last question.
QUESTION: I know from the U.S. perspective that everything is about getting the verification protocol in place and ““ to be able to move forward. But how much of this goes back to the issue of trust on the terrorism list issue? The North Koreans now saying that they don’t want to move forward until they’re off of the terrorism list. And is there a way around that? Is it ““ do the North Koreans have their heels dug in about the terrorism list and they’re not refusing to talk about verification until they come off? I mean, is it a Catch-22 at this point?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: You know, I think they understand that we need a verification process. I think when you ““ if you don’t have a clear process on how you’re going to verify, problems will start coming up as you begin the verification process. So it’s kind of ““ you take a choice. Do you want problems in the beginning in trying to negotiate the verification protocol, or do you want problems to come up every day that you’re trying to do verification because you didn’t spell it out in the first place? So our preference is to try to nail down the issues in advance. This is very much consistent with international standards of how you do this. And you’d have to ask the North Koreans whether they have a different view of that. But certainly, they understand that we need it and we need a verifiable declaration, and it’s not verifiable until we have identified a set of means to verify things.
And so we’re in the middle of a tough negotiation on it. I’m not saying it’s easy. Obviously, there’s a lot of, you know, concerns as we go through this. Obviously, it’s of concern what we’re seeing on the ground in Yongbyon. But I want to emphasize it’s just a real tough negotiation and those of us engaged in it need to see if we can find our way through it.
QUESTION: Is it still a negotiation? I mean —
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yes, it is.
QUESTION: But they haven’t ““ so you don’t regard what they’ve been doing over the last month as walking away?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think they have been staking out some very tough negotiating positions. We’re in touch with them about our positions. I know other Six Parties are in touch with them, which is all the more reason why we need to work closely with the Six Parties. So yeah, the negotiating process does continue.
QUESTION: But are you even getting a sense that they’re willing to move on verification without movement on the terrorism list? Are you getting a sense that they’re willing to negotiate on it?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think what’s important for us is to have the sense that they want to complete this phase two despite what has been a very tough month in that regard. And we do have the sense that they want to continue to reach a phase two agreement. Whether we do that depends on the outcome of some ““ what continues to be a very, very tough negotiation. And maybe at some point, when it’s all done, we can talk about it.
QUESTION: But why do you have to re-negotiate what you already negotiated? I mean, it’s like you’re going back to negotiate —
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, no.
QUESTION: — what’s already been negotiated.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: What we did was we got from them a declaration and we have been trying to negotiate a protocol. We’ve made some progress on the negotiation. We’ve agreed on some of the major elements of the ““ of what verification will be. But there are some details that do need to be pinned down. And if they’re not pinned down, you’ll end up with a problem later on. So we’re going to try to get those things pinned down and try to stick with the task and try to get it done.
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, that ends the Chris Hill portion of our briefing.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
2008/764
Released on September 22, 2008