4/14 Press Brief: DPRK

Robert Wood

Acting Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

April 14, 2009

 

 

NORTH KOREA
UN Security Council Presidential Statement / Resumption of Talks / Verifiable Denuclearization of Korean Peninsula / Full Implementation of 2005 Joint Statement / Very Clear Presidential Statement / International Community's Response / Focus on North Korea's Behavior / Weight of International Law / Meeting Obligations / Want to See Implementation
Six-Party Framework / Best Way Forward in Dealing with Denuclearization / North Korea Agreed to Steps

 

 

QUESTION: North Korea.

MR. WOOD: Yes.

QUESTION: What is your response to their announcements?

MR. WOOD: Well, Matt, let me just say I know you all have a lot of questions about North Korea. I don’t have very much at all today that I’m going to give you. And I know you’re going to come at me with a lot of questions from various angles, but I just want to basically refer you back to the UN Security Council presidential statement that was issued. And this presidential statement made very clear the position of the UN Security Council plus Japan. And as you know, the statement calls for an early resumption of the Six-Party Talks, a verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and full implementation of the joint statement of 2005. I don’t have much more for you right now. At some later point, we’ll have more to say, but right now, that’s all I have.

QUESTION: In other words, you have no response?

MR. WOOD: As I said, I’ve given you right now what I have for you.

QUESTION: Well, that’s great. But, Robert, but that’s from – that’s from yesterday.

MR. WOOD: Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, things have happened on the ground today.

MR. WOOD: Oh, I understand.

QUESTION: Presumably, the United States is aware of them.

MR. WOOD: Look, we’re certainly aware of what’s going on. But what I’m saying is the statement that was issued by the Security Council in Japan spoke for the international community. It was very clear what our position is with regard to the type of behavior the North has been engaged in. There’s really nothing more to add to it.

QUESTION: The North today has said that it’s going to restart its –Yongbyon, that it’s going to pull out of the Six-Party Talks, and there are reports that they’ve expelled the U.S. and IAEA inspectors. You’re telling me that the United States Government does not have any kind of response or reaction to that?

MR. WOOD: I’m saying – right now, this is what our response is. And this is not just the U.S. response, this is the international community’s response to what the North has been doing.

QUESTION: I’m, sorry. That --

QUESTION: That happened before North Korea did all this. I mean, you gave your response, which is your statement, and then North Korea reacted by doing all this. And I mean, what practical consequences can you impose on North Korea for its bad behavior when you put out the statement that, even though you said it’s legally binding, many members don’t feel that it’s legally binding? And North Korea continues to flaunt the will of the international community.

MR. WOOD: Well, look, we’ve seen a lot of what the North has done before, Elise. I don’t have anything new I can give you right now beyond what I’ve said. At, you know, later points, we will have more to say about it. But I think we spoke very clearly – we meaning the United States and others on the Council, the broader international community – about what we want to see the North do. There really isn’t anything to add to it at this point.

QUESTION: Well, what can you – how can you make them do what you want them to do if you can’t get a UN Security Council resolution authorize – not authorizing – you know, requiring members to take those measures and North Korea isn’t listening to you anyway? So I mean, how – how does that statement speak as any type of consequences or any type of way to get North Korea to follow what you said in the --

MR. WOOD: The statement was very clear, Elise. There was no question about the intent of the statement, what the statement required of the North. This is something we have been addressing for quite some time. The North, as you know, has been engaged in all sorts of behavior. There have been ups and downs in that entire process of the Six-Party Talks. I think, as I said, the international community spoke very clearly to the North. It was a very strong response and made very clear what the North needs to do. And I’ve outlined those three points.

QUESTION: Well, and they’re speaking very clearly to you that they’re not going to listen.

MR. WOOD: Well, they risk further isolation in the international community.

QUESTION: Is that possible?

MR. WOOD: Well, you know, look, I think I’ve spoken to it as much as I can right now and --

QUESTION: Is there going to be another international coordinated response or do you think individual governments – the U.S., Japan, South Korea and everything – will have their own response?

MR. WOOD: Well, I think we’ll just have to wait and see. But certainly, the international community is focused on the issue of the North’s behavior and it’s – what it’s required to do. And as I said, when we have more to say about it, we will. But at this point, you know, the international community spoke very clearly, and there really isn’t anything more to add to it.

James.

QUESTION: I do want to pursue this question of whether or not the presidential statement issued by the UN Security Council is legally binding. When you were asked about this yesterday, Robert, all you said was that the United States considers it to be legally binding.

MR. WOOD: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But I’m wondering on what legal basis you have to assert that it is legally binding. As a matter of fact, it is not legally binding.

MR. WOOD: Well, there is a statement from the UN Security Council. It has the weight of international law behind it. It is binding, in our view. I don’t have anything further to add to it. I think it was very, very, very clear.

QUESTION: But it’s not enforceable legally, correct?

MR. WOOD: Well, it’s enforceable in the sense that the international community is basically tasked by the Council with a certain set of instructions that are laid out in the statement. And it’s up to the international community to go forward and implement that. And so we certainly want to see that statement implemented and we will continue to work with others in the international community to make sure that we do get that statement fully implemented.

QUESTION: But it is not binding on anyone to implement it, Robert.

MR. WOOD: Well, you know, statements --

QUESTION: Am I wrong in that assertion?

MR. WOOD: Statements, Security Council resolutions, frankly, don’t have much practical effect unless they are implemented. So in this particular case, the international community has called on the North to take some steps. And the international community has an obligation to do what it can to make sure that the North does meet those obligations.

QUESTION: Would you, as a taken question, please have the State Department Legal Counselor or the Office of Legal Counselor address this?

MR. WOOD: Well, I think I’ve addressed it, James, very clearly. It’s – this has the weight of international law, whether it be a statement or a resolution. Now again, we want to see this particular statement implemented, and that’s up to the people – to the countries in the international community to do so. So whether it be a – and we’ve said this from the beginning, whether it be a resolution or a statement coming out of the Council, that this needed to be a strong response to what the North engaged in, and that the international community needs to do what it can, live up to its own responsibilities, to use its leverage to get the North to respond.

QUESTION: Just as a factual matter and as a – and with all due respect, I’m positing here that you are speaking incorrectly about the nature of this document, that it does not carry the weight of international law. And I would appreciate it if, as a taken question, you could have the lawyers weigh in with some kind of statement.

MR. WOOD: I’ll be happy to take a look at it for you, James.

QUESTION: Robert?

QUESTION: I mean, how can it be legally binding if you say that it’s up to the countries to decide whether they want to --

MR. WOOD: Well, what I’m saying is for there to be results from an action taken by the Security Council, countries have to take steps to implement the agreed text. That’s when it has effect. And there’s an obligation on the part of, you know, members of the international community to follow what’s been laid out in statements and in resolutions in the Security Council. So – now that’s the point I was trying to make.

QUESTION: Robert?

MR. WOOD: Charlie, go ahead.

QUESTION: Earlier a few minutes ago, you said there have been many ups and downs in the Six-Party Talks.

MR. WOOD: Right.

QUESTION: I don’t want to draw a conclusion you didn’t intend, but is it the Administration’s view the North’s response is just another down and that this will come back up? Or would that be unfair?

MR. WOOD: Well, no, I’ve basically said in the past.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. WOOD: It’s very hard for me to gauge, as I’ve said many times, what the thinking is on the part of North Korea. But what I’ve said is the international community has spoken very clearly with regard to that presidential statement.

QUESTION: My question is: What’s the thinking of the Administration in terms of – another down period and it’ll come back? I’m not --

MR. WOOD: Well, as I said, Charlie, I’m not – today not able to give you that kind of an assessment yet. But as I said, we will speak, you know, later about, you know, the issue of North Korea.

QUESTION: So now that you just – I want to make sure I’m clear on this.

MR. WOOD: Sure.

QUESTION: Everything that the North has done and reported to have done today, you have no response to?

MR. WOOD: I’ve given you my response, which is the response of the international community to what --

QUESTION: Which is (inaudible) yesterday’s statement which led the North Koreans to do this?

MR. WOOD: Well, all I can --

QUESTION: Are you saying that maybe later today, there’s going to be some kind of response?

MR. WOOD: No, I didn’t mean to say “later today.” I don’t think I used “later today.” I said at some point later.

QUESTION: Well, you said later.

MR. WOOD: Right. I’m not meaning “later today”, but at some point in the future, we will have more say about it.

QUESTION: So then would it be correct to assume, since you do not have a response, that you don’t regard this as anything very serious?

MR. WOOD: I didn’t say that at all. I just said to you --

QUESTION: Well, you said – I’m sorry, but we’re asking for a reaction to what the North has done and said today. You don’t have one, except to refer back to the presidential statement of yesterday. So what should we – what --

MR. WOOD: Here, I will tell you what you should read from what I’m saying. The international community, through that strong statement, made very clear what it wanted to see the North do.

QUESTION: Yes. And the North has now just threw that – thrown all of that back in your face.

MR. WOOD: Well --

QUESTION: They’re pulling out of the talks. They’re restarting the – they’re going to restart the reactor.

MR. WOOD: Well, obviously, the international community --

QUESTION: You have no reaction to that?

MR. WOOD: What I’m saying, Matt, is that we have come out – we, the international community, have a strong response to what the North has been doing. Okay? It’s made a lot of threats. It’s threatened to take steps, threatened not to take other steps. The international community spoke very clearly in that statement, and we just don’t have anything to add at this point.

QUESTION: I know. But are you saying that you think that these might just be threats, what type of warning, they might not follow through?

MR. WOOD: I am not – I’m not trying to make that kind of a characterization. What I’m saying to you is that what we said yesterday as a – as the Security Council, the international community speaking as one voice, still stands today.

QUESTION: Any news on whether the North Koreans have thrown out inspectors?

MR. WOOD: I’ve seen reports, but I don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Robert, the North Koreans have been boycotting the Six-Party Talks since July when the verification issues came up. Does that – what they said today, does it make any difference in terms of day-to-day what you’re doing with the other parties? Because I haven’t seen any progress or anything, any movement since July on this front, so what’s the difference?

MR. WOOD: Well, the problem has been, since July, the fact that the North Koreans would not agree to putting some assurances that it had given to us in private into a document. And so we’ve been hung up on that question of getting the North to agree to provide us with, you know, sufficient, adequate verification of all of the documents they submitted. That’s where it’s been hung up. And we have been very clear in what the North needs to do.

And again, I’d just refer you back to the statement because I think it was very clear and it gave you a sense of where the international community feels the North needs to go. And you know, I’ve said, you know, and others have said very clearly in the past what the North needs to do. It needed to live up to its obligations. We’re still waiting for the North to do that. And you know, these things that are reported that the North has said and has begun to do, it doesn't change the nature of our response. Our response was very clear from the international community what they needed to do.

QUESTION: And just on the process, they talked about restarting Yongbyon. And the disablement of Yongbyon was part of phase two, and also part of that phase was the shipments of heavy fuel oil that they’ve been receiving from the U.S., from Japan, and from other countries. If they were to go back and restart Yongbyon, does that mean that the benefits they’re getting from phase two have to be rolled back, too?

MR. WOOD: Look, as you know, Nick, from the Six-Party framework, we are engaged in an action-for-action --

QUESTION: Exactly.

MR. WOOD: -- scheme. And I’m just not going to speculate on what we, the international community, will do, except just to, you know, make the point that we’ve been very clear about what the North needs to do. And you know, as I said, at some future point we’ll have more to say, but I think right now we’ve all spoken very clearly through that statement. And I just don’t have anything more to add on it.

QUESTION: And just on the lack of the response, I’m wondering – there is no assistant secretary for East Asia yet, not even nominated. The envoy to talks North Korea is a part-time employee of the State Department. I know that Sung Kim is here every day and he works on this. But are you trying not to antagonize the North Koreans any more than they have been by yesterday’s statement that you’re not saying much about it?

MR. WOOD: No, I think we’ve just been very clear about where we stand with regard to the North’s behavior. I know it sounds like a broken record, but that’s – we have said this over and over and over again. And we spoke clearly through that presidential statement, and the North knows what it needs to do.

QUESTION: Well, surely you have to acknowledge that the situation from yesterday to today has changed, has it not?

MR. WOOD: You know, certainly, we have seen these reports, you know, and we’re certainly aware of what the North has said, you know, and I just don’t have anything to add.

QUESTION: Well, I just hope that you’re aware that the lack of response indicates – would indicate to some, I think, that the Administration doesn't know what to do.

MR. WOOD: No, I --

QUESTION: And doesn't know what to say.

MR. WOOD: It doesn't – just because we’re not saying much right now doesn't --

QUESTION: So it’s a calculated silence?

MR. WOOD: Look, you can characterize it however you want, Matt. I’m just going to tell you that there are people who are --

QUESTION: Well, I mean --

MR. WOOD: -- people working on this issue and who have been consulting --

QUESTION: There are?

MR. WOOD: Yes.

QUESTION: And were they asked about what they thought about what was going on?

MR. WOOD: I’m not going to get into details of these conversations, but you can rest assured that the State Department --

QUESTION: How about --

MR. WOOD: Let me finish. The State Department is focused on this issue, as are other countries’ foreign ministries in terms of dealing with the North. I’m just giving you what our sense is of what – of where things are at the moment.

QUESTION: One more on North Korea?

MR. WOOD: Sure.

QUESTION: During her East Asia trip, the Secretary held out the promise of a peace treaty to end the Korea war, more economic aid to North Korea, full diplomatic relations, then we have the launch and now this threat to pull out of the Six-Party Talks. Did the U.S. overplay its hand?

MR. WOOD: I wouldn't characterize it like that at all. I mean, this is – remember, this whole Six-Party framework is what we in the international community feel is the – was the best way forward in terms of dealing with denuclearization. The North Koreans agreed to a number of steps and it took some, you know, specific steps to address concerns of the international community, but wouldn't go any further in terms of verification beyond giving us some private assurances. The Council has spoken on numerous occasions with regard to the North’s behavior, and there just really isn’t anything at the moment to add. At some point, as I said earlier, we will be speaking in more detail, but I think right now we need to let that statement speak for itself with regard to North Korea.

QUESTION: What message will Secretary Clinton be asking the state councilor to take back to the North Koreans?

MR. WOOD: Well, they’re going to talk about a host of issues, the Secretary and State Councilor Liu. They’re going to talk about climate change. They’re going to talk about energy issues and the U.S.-China relationship. Could North Korea come up? It could very well come up. I just – the meeting hasn’t happened yet, so we’ll just have to see.

Elise.

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. WOOD: New topic? One more?

QUESTION: Do you have any incentives that the North has to come back to the table for the Six-Party Talks?

MR. WOOD: Look, the North was given a range of incentives through the Six-Party framework. Those are well known. And the North has to make a decision as to whether or not it wants to take up those incentives. But that’s a question for the North.

Anything else on this?

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. WOOD: Sounds good.

 

…

 

QUESTION: I had an Iran/North Korea. Have you seen a report that there’s been a shipment of enriched uranium from North Korea to Iran?

MR. WOOD: No, I haven’t seen that at all. I’ll see what I can find, if anything, on that.

 

FW: 4/14 Press Brief: Iran

Robert Wood

Acting Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

April 14, 2009

 

 

IRAN
	P-5+1 / Resolving Shared Concerns with Iran / Direct Diplomacy / Suspension is our Goal / Incentives Package Remains on the Table / Suspension of Uranium Enrichment an International Condition
	Iran Policy Still Under Review
	Roxana Saberi / Reports of Trial / Working with Swiss Protecting Power / Verifying Reports / Remain Committed to Securing her Release
	Decision to go to Durban Has Nothing to do with Ahmadinejad's Attendance

 

 

QUESTION: Another nuclear-armed nation, almost – Iran. Can you talk about reports that you’re willing to drop the condition of suspension before talks begin?

MR. WOOD: Look, you know, the P-5+1 stated last week that we were – you know, that we were willing to resolve our shared concerns with Iran – Iran’s nuclear program through direct diplomacy. And nothing has changed. Suspension is still our goal. And there is, you know, as I think you referred to, an incentives package that’s on the table. It remains on the table. We encourage Iran to take up that incentives package. But I don’t have anything beyond what --

QUESTION: But it used to be that suspension of uranium was a precondition for the talks to start. And it seems like that precondition has been dropped. President Obama himself has said that he’s willing to talk to Iran without any preconditions.

MR. WOOD: Well, right. But again, this issue of suspension of uranium enrichment is an international condition, not an American condition.

QUESTION: Well, it sounds like it’s being dropped if there are no preconditions --

MR. WOOD: Well, look --

QUESTION: -- to talking to Iran.

MR. WOOD: I don’t have anything more beyond that. I mean, I saw the story, but I’m just laying out for you what our position is.

QUESTION: Well, is it your position that there’s a mandatory suspension before talks start?

MR. WOOD: No, what we – look, we have said very clearly that we are willing to engage in direct diplomacy with Iran without conditions. But as I said, this particular issue with regard to enriched uranium --

QUESTION: Well, that was a U.S. demand.

MR. WOOD: No, it was a demand of the P-5+1.

QUESTION: It was a U.S. demand that was embraced by the rest of the P-5+1.

MR. WOOD: P-5+1.

QUESTION: So is it a demand of the P-5+1 that Iran suspend before talks start?

MR. WOOD: Look --

QUESTION: If you’re asking them to start talking now and they haven’t started yet – haven’t stopped yet, so obviously you’re willing to start talking to them without them having stopped enriching.

MR. WOOD: Well, as I said, that’s a requirement of the P-5+1. But also, Elise, I just want to remind you as well that our Iran policy is still, you know, being reviewed. There are certain elements of it that we have already laid out for you. There will be others in the future.

But let me just leave it where I have it right now, and that’s, you know, suspending enrichment, that remains our goal. We want to see that happen. That’s an international requirement of Iran. But having said that, we – the P-5+1 supports our position in terms of direct diplomacy with Iran. As I mentioned last week, Bill Burns will be attending future P-5+1 meetings with Iran as a full participant. That is certainly new. And so that’s where we are on the moment – at the moment.

QUESTION: Right. But if you’re – if you invited Iran to talks and they haven’t stopped their suspension yet and you’re willing to start talking, then clearly they don’t have to suspend before you start talking.

MR. WOOD: Elise, I can’t put it any more plainly than I have.

QUESTION: Well, you’re not --

MR. WOOD: It’s our goal to get --

QUESTION: It’s your ultimate goal.

MR. WOOD: -- that’s – it’s our goal.

QUESTION: But not necessarily the goal for the talks.

MR. WOOD: I’m just saying it’s our goal.

QUESTION: Ultimate goal?

MR. WOOD: I’m saying it’s our goal.

QUESTION: I mean, has there been any response from the Iranians yet to the invitation?

MR. WOOD: As far as I know, there has been no response to the Javier Solana invitation.

QUESTION: So are there plans for the political directors or others to – of just the P-5+1 without Iran – as you are waiting for the Iranian response, are there plans for them to meet to figure out --

MR. WOOD: Well, I mean --

QUESTION: -- where to go?

MR. WOOD: -- the P-5+1 engage in telephone conversations. I don’t think there’s anything scheduled, but I certainly – it wouldn’t surprise me if, you know, there is some kind of P-5+1 conversation in the coming days or weeks. Nobody’s told me that there is one planned, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

QUESTION: And when would you like to see the meeting with Iran take place? Is this something as soon as possible, or is this something that you still need more (inaudible) from the P-5+1 side?

MR. WOOD: Well, first, we have to see indeed whether Iran responds to that invitation positively before we start talking about dates. And I think, you know, the last I checked, that’s where we are.

QUESTION: New subject?

QUESTION: On Iran?

MR. WOOD: Yeah.

QUESTION: Roxana Saberi is apparently being tried on espionage charges, and a verdict is expected within a few weeks, according to reports there. This is not looking very encouraging, is it?

MR. WOOD: Well, you know, we’ve seen reports that Roxana Saberi went on trial earlier this week. We’re working with our Swiss protecting power, as I mentioned the other day, to try to verify what’s being reported in the press. You know, the charges as have been reported, we maintain, are baseless, without foundation. We remain committed to trying to secure her release. And that’s all I have. I will keep you abreast as we are able to, you know, obtain more information about the case.

Yes, James.

QUESTION: Different subject?

QUESTION: Can we stay with --

MR. WOOD: Oh, you want to stay with that one? Sure.

QUESTION: Yeah, I just wanted – you know, Ahmadinejad is going to be going to the Durban 2 conference next week, and I’m just wondering how that plays into – if it does at all, plays into U.S. calculations about whether to boycott or not.

MR. WOOD: It has absolutely nothing to do with that at all. Our decision to go to Durban will depend on whether or not we are satisfied that the language addresses some of our concerns. It has nothing to do with whether Ahmadinejad shows up or not.

QUESTION: So you’re --

QUESTION: I just wanted to follow up on the Saberi, sorry. You’re saying you’re trying to get information from the Swiss about the trial that’s going on. Is there a sense that you’re not getting very much information about this?

MR. WOOD: Well, we’re trying to get as much as we can. The Swiss, I know, have been trying very hard. It’s really – you know, the Iranians can supply this information, and so far they haven’t been willing to give us the information that we need. And so even though we haven’t been able to get that information, we’re going to continue to try. And the Swiss, as I said, are working very hard to do that.

But we remain very concerned about her situation. And, you know, the Secretary, I know, asked the question almost every day, if not every day, about, you know, what’s the status of Roxana Saberi. So, again, we continue to work for her release. We’re trying to verify this information. And, you know, we’ll give you an update tomorrow, assuming we have one.

Anything else?

QUESTION: I had an Iran/North Korea. Have you seen a report that there’s been a shipment of enriched uranium from North Korea to Iran?

MR. WOOD: No, I haven’t seen that at all. I’ll see what I can find, if anything, on that.

 

4/6 Clinton: DPRK

Secretary's Remarks: RemarksWith Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere After Their Meeting
Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:30:38 -0500

RemarksWith Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere After Their Meeting

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Treaty Room

Washington, DC

April 6, 2009

 

EXCERPT

MR. WOOD: We have time for two questions, the first one from Kirit Radia of ABC News.

 

 

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, yesterday the Security Council failed to condemn North Korea for its launch, and U.S. efforts appear increasingly unlikely to get a strong international response that you’re looking for. What can the U.S. do bilaterally and internationally to punish North Korea?

 

 

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say that the U nited States is joined by many countries in denouncing the actions of North Korea. It was, in our view, a clear violation of Security Council Resolution 1718. It’s a provocative act that has grave implications. North Korea ignored its international obligations, rejected the unequivocal calls for restraint, and further isolated itself from the community of nations.

We are actively involved in consultation with partners at the United Nations, members of the Security Council. I have spoken with all of the foreign ministers of the countries that participate in the Six-Party Talks, some more than once. And we know that working out the exact language is not easily done overnight, but we remain convinced that coming out with a strong position in the United Nations is the first and important step that we intend to take.

 

North Korea has to know that any efforts to obtain the objectives it set forth as desiring in the Six-Party Talks are put at jeopardy. But we’re going to take this one step at a time, and right now our representative to the United Nations is involved in nonstop discussions, as are myself and other members of this government, and we’re not going to prejudge the outcome.

 

4/6 State Press Brief: DPRK

Robert Wood Acting Department Spokesman Daily Press Briefing April 6, 2009 EXCERPT NORTH KOREA Missile Launch / UN Security Council Resolution / Consultations Continuing with Key Players / Want to See a Strong Response from Security Council / Secretary's Phone Calls with Japan, South Korea, China and Russia / Discuss with Capitals the Most Effective Response / Complicated Issue / Early in the Process / Differing Views / Launch Further Isolates North Korea / Weapons Proliferation / Difficult Diplomacy / Six-Party Framework     QUESTION: Can we go to North Korea? MR. WOOD: Absolutely. QUESTION: Where do things stand in New York on your efforts to get a resolution? MR. WOOD: Well, Arshad, consultations are continuing with the key players in the Council on the next steps. We want to see a strong response come from the UN Security Council on this issue. Secretary Clinton had telephone calls on Sunday with the foreign ministers of Japan, South Korea, China and Russia to talk about the issue. We’re going to continue to go forward in discussions with our partners in the Council to seek a strong, coordinated and effective response to the North Korean missile launch. QUESTION: Potentially – you used the word “response” and not “resolution.” Have you sort of conceded that you don’t think you can get a strong resolution? MR. WOOD: No, we’re just – we need to meet with our partners in New York. They need to also discuss with their capitals the type of effective – the most effective response that we can come away with in New York. So it’s very early in the process. You know how these things go in New York at the Security Council. It’s going to take time. We think that what we heard yesterday in the Security Council session was positive. There is focus on what the North Koreans did. There’s great concern about what the North Koreans did. And we’ve got to find a way to go forward that’s coordinated and, as I said, effective. QUESTION: Do you want a resolution? MR. WOOD: Well, we want the strongest possible response that we can get in the Security Council. I’d just prefer to leave it at that if it’s -- QUESTION: Well, why didn’t we get that yesterday? What was the problem? MR. WOOD: Well, look, this is a very complicated issue. We made very clear that we want to see a very strong response coming from the Security Council. And it’s early in the process, Matt. These things take time and we’re going to be working hard because we don’t want to see this type of thing happen again if -- QUESTION: What happened yesterday that did not allow you to get the – at the moment, there’s no response, resolution or statement or – there’s nothing. MR. WOOD: Well, again, Matt -- QUESTION: So why didn’t you – why weren’t you able to get that yesterday? MR. WOOD: I said to you it’s a very complicated issue and there is great concern amongst all the parties in the Security Council about the action that the North took. We’re trying to work to make sure we get this right, that we get an effective response that deals with the issue. And as I said, this is the UN Security Council. There are differing views. But what’s important here is that we move forward and get that effective response. QUESTION: I’m sorry. Okay, so what are the differing views? MR. WOOD: Well, I’m not going to get into the substance of discussions of -- QUESTION: Well, I thought you said that there was unanimity and great – you know, there was great concern. MR. WOOD: I said there was – that everyone expressed concern about the issue. QUESTION: But then you said there are differing views. MR. WOOD: Well, differing views in terms of how you go forward. But that doesn’t mean that people are not concerned. There was a unified expression of concern within the Council. And so what we’re trying to do now is to work with our partners and others on the Council to come up with an effective response. QUESTION: Is there hesitance among members of the Council even to more aggressively implement the existing sanctions? MR. WOOD: Well, look, the session yesterday was focused on trying to deal with the aftermath of this launch, and those consultations will be continuing, Arshad. I can’t speak for other countries on the Council, but I can tell you that Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice have been working this feverishly. The President, as you know, has spoken to the issue. And it’s going to take a little time, as I said, in the Council to get this response. But what is important, as I said to Matt, is that we get an effective, coordinated response that deals with this issue and deals with it seriously. Yes, James. QUESTION: I’m curious to know what makes this such a complicated issue, because you have, for all to see, the existing UN Security Council resolutions which expressly forbade North Korea from conducting exactly the kind of action which it itself acknowledges it took here. And so what complicates matters if the prohibition was clear for all to see and the action was clear for all to see? MR. WOOD: Well, I can’t speak for other members in the Council, but we’ve been very clear all along, James, as you know, that we viewed any missile launch by the North as being provocative, not in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1718. We’ve made that very clear. But what’s important now is that in the Council, we get a coordinated response that deals with this approach effectively. QUESTION: Is it the case that not all of the members of the Security Council or at least the Permanent Five agree that there was, in fact, a violation of existing UN Security Council resolutions? Is that true? MR. WOOD: I’m not going to speak for others on the Council. I’ve given you what our position is with regard to that being a violation. QUESTION: Ambassador Rice said after her – at her stakeout yesterday that the members expressed varying views on that exact question as to whether or not this was a violation of existing UN Security Council resolutions. MR. WOOD: I said that there were differing opinions on – in terms of going forward here. And I’m not going to get beyond what Ambassador Rice said in New York. But just to be very clear once again, James, that we have got to find a way to deal with this launch and its aftermath effectively. And that’s why consultations are ongoing. That’s why the Secretary made phone calls yesterday. It is a complicated issue for a number of reasons that I don’t want to get into, but the important thing is, is that we focus on this right now. And this is priority number one right – in New York. QUESTION: Is it – what is complicating the issue the fact that regardless of how you go forward, you can’t even secure agreement that this is, in fact, a violation of the existing Security Council resolutions? MR. WOOD: Well, James, I’m not going to go beyond what I’ve said. Again, these consultations are going on in New York, and we’re going to find a way to get a coordinated response to this, an effective response, something that deals with this issue and prevents the North from undertaking these types of activities, again, which as I’ve said, from the U.S. point of view, are illegal under UN Security Council Resolution 1718. QUESTION: Robert? MR. WOOD: Yeah, Charley’s been waiting. I’ll go to you (inaudible). QUESTION: Well -- QUESTION: Please, Charley. MR. WOOD: Oh, I’m sorry. I meant this Charley. We can come back, Charlie. Thank you. QUESTION: What do you say to those who are characterizing it as an unambiguous win for North Korea, particularly in light of the lack of a quick, united response from the United Nations? MR. WOOD: I would reject that characterization completely. It was not a win for North Korea. This kind of action only further isolates the North. And the fact that the Security Council is taking this issue up demonstrates how important it is that we deal with this matter and the need for it to be dealt with. And so I would reject any characterization that the North – that this is some kind of a win for the North. It’s not. The Council needs to speak and speak clearly on this, and we are going to work very hard to make sure that we do speak loudly. But I’m not going to go beyond that right now because consultations are ongoing. And what’s important here, as I said, is to try to get an effective response. QUESTION: Can I just -- QUESTION: Can I follow up on that? MR. WOOD: No, hang on. She’s been waiting. QUESTION: I’d like to know what unilateral actions the United States is considering, especially those that might involve financial sanctions or putting people on lists or barring banking transactions? MR. WOOD: Well, I’m not going to go beyond what we’re doing in the Security Council right now. We will – obviously, if there are things that we can do, we will certainly do them. But right now, the focus of our attention is in New York on trying to get a unified response from the Council. QUESTION: So there’s no discussion of what else might be – you know, Plan B, a backup -- MR. WOOD: Well -- QUESTION: -- if there’s not an appropriate Security Council response -- MR. WOOD: There are discussions that go on, but I’m not going to get into the details of those here from the podium. QUESTION: -- and what you’re considering? MR. WOOD: Not from the podium here. Charlie. QUESTION: No, I (inaudible). MR. WOOD: (Inaudible.) QUESTION: Could you provide an overall assessment as to why the Administration considers the launch a failure, but they failed to succeed as far as the Japanese are concerned? It flew quite far and it flew over Japan, so -- MR. WOOD: Well, I think I’ve outlined why it was not a success, and the fact that it’s further isolating the North. If the North wants to get in the good graces of the international community, this is not a positive step in that direction. And in fact, the Security Council is taking this issue up. It demonstrates, as I said earlier, that this is an important issue for all of us. Our objective is to try to get the North back to the negotiating table within the Six-Party framework. We want to do that. That is a high priority. This is not – this type of missile launch is not a good thing for the international community. It’s not a good thing for North Korea if it’s trying to get back in the good graces of the world community. QUESTION: So when you say failure, you’re talking politically rather than technologically (inaudible)? MR. WOOD: Well, that was the question, I think, in political terms, so I answered in those terms. Yes. QUESTION: Thanks. At last, North Korea has launched long-range missile. Some source said hidden intention is – of North Korea is to get direct talk with United States. What is your comment on that? MR. WOOD: I – as I’ve said many times from the podium, it’s hard for me to give you any readout into the mindset of the North Korean leadership. QUESTION: So, Robert, what’s your assessment of the proliferation threat following this launch? Has it increased or -- MR. WOOD: I don’t think I’m able to make an assessment at this early stage. But clearly, this is not helpful to our efforts to prevent, you know, weapons from being proliferated around the world. And that’s why the Security Council is concerned about this. The President has spoken about nonproliferation and that it’s a high priority for this Administration, and it should be a high priority for every administration in the world. So we’ll have to see. I can’t make an assessment, you know, a day and a half after this launch. We’ll just have to see. Sir. QUESTION: As you said, there are differences, and the countries seem pretty entrenched in their positions right now where there want to go on this. But you’ve also said that what your goal is is a coordinated response. I’m just wondering which is more important right now for the United States. Is a coordinated response more important, or are you willing to allow the Council to be divided a little bit to get something more substantive that’s going to show some type of punitive action that shows North Korea that they did something wrong on -- MR. WOOD: Well, I don’t want to get ahead of the process. But I think I’ve been very clear in terms of what we want to see come out of the Council, and that’s a strong and effective response. And we’ve got to work hard to try to get that strong and effective response. And I said before, the issue’s a bit complicated, as you know, and it’s going to take time. It’s not something, I would suspect, that we could resolve in the next day or so. It’s going to take time. But we feel it’s important enough that we have to work very hard to get this kind of strong response; otherwise, we send a negative signal to the North. QUESTION: But what’s more important – the coordinated or the strong, effective response? Which one is more important? MR. WOOD: Well, we’d like to – look, we’d like to have a strong, effective, coordinated response from the Council. I can’t – what’s important is that we send a message to the North that this type of behavior is provocative, it cannot happen again, and that if it’s interested in getting back into the good graces of the international community, it needs to desist from this type of behavior in the future. QUESTION: Are you convinced that they want to get back into the good graces of the international community? MR. WOOD: Matt, I can’t get into the insight of -- QUESTION: Well, you keep saying that you think that the -- MR. WOOD: This is what the North has professed publicly and to others. QUESTION: Right. And you – the other thing you keep saying is that it further isolates the North Koreans. MR. WOOD: That’s right. QUESTION: How much more isolated can North Korea be? MR. WOOD: Well -- QUESTION: I mean, this is a country that is completely isolated and shut off from the rest of the world. How can anything that they do make them more isolated? MR. WOOD: Well, certainly, this launch further isolates them, Matt. I don’t think there’s any question about it. QUESTION: But Iranian -- MR. WOOD: Let me finish the answer here to Matt’s question. QUESTION: In fact, it hasn’t further isolated them because the international community hasn’t been able to come up with an effective, coordinated response. MR. WOOD: Matt, this is very early in the process. It’s early in the process, and it’s going to take time. And when you’re trying to get a strong response, it’s going to take time. Our diplomats in New York are going to be working this very hard. The Secretary is working it very hard. Look, we have a process. We have outlined a path for the North to pursue in the Six-Party framework. QUESTION: What is – what does the U.S. want to see from the end of this process, this very complicated process that’s going to take some time? What is the end result that the U.S. wants? Is it a resolution that adds more sanctions, if that’s possible? Or is it something that just reaffirms the existing resolutions? What is it? MR. WOOD: Matt, I’ve said it over and again. QUESTION: No, no -- MR. WOOD: A strong and effective response from the Council. That’s what we want. QUESTION: What does that mean? MR. WOOD: Well, we’ll have to see how that plays out. I’m not going to dictate the terms of it from here because I don’t know how that’s going to – that process is going to evolve in New York. But what’s important for us is that it be strong and effective and deal with this question. QUESTION: So to meet that criteria that you’re laying out and without asking you to define it exactly, does it have to be stronger than the 2006 prohibition which obviously failed to deter North Korea? MR. WOOD: Look, James, we’re very early in the process, okay? And I know I’m repeating myself here, but I think it’s important for everyone to understand there is diplomatic activity going on in New York. And this launch just took place. As I said, it’s complex. We’ve got to make sure that we send a very strong and unified message to the North about this, and to would-be proliferators, those who are out there thinking about either conducting these types of launches or, you know, threatening to proliferate weapons further. And so we have to give this a little time. It’s very early. It’s too early for me to get more specific than that. QUESTION: I understand, but, you know, you had a strong and unified and effective response from the Council in 2006 that failed to deter North Korea from conducting a launch like this, even though the prohibition carried the force of international law. So it stands to reason that what you’re trying to accomplish now should be stronger than that to provide a more effective deterrent. MR. WOOD: Well, as I said, we want a strong response. Look, the North was engaged in the Six-Party process. We got to the point of trying to, you know, verify exactly what the North was submitting with regard to its program. It refused to put that in writing. That’s what was holding up the process. The onus needs to be on the North. The North is the country that took this provocative act. It is further isolating itself. Therefore, the Security Council needs to take action. And we are working hard, as I said, to try to produce something that will be effective and deal with this issue. I can’t get more specific than that because there is diplomacy ongoing in New York and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to do that. QUESTION: Just a practical question? MR. WOOD: Sure. QUESTION: You were talking about the – you know, the Secretary working feverishly on this. Has she made any calls today about this issue? MR. WOOD: I don’t have the list, but there – she is planning to make some calls today on this issue. QUESTION: Can you get us that by the end of the day? MR. WOOD: Yeah, we’ll try and do that. QUESTION: Thank you. MR. WOOD: Mm-hmm. Any more on North Korea? QUESTION: I just had one. Do you think that the longer it takes to get a response shows a weaker, not a strong response? MR. WOOD: No, I don’t think it does. I think it just shows how complex this issue is, how important it is. And that’s why we want to take the time and get the strongest, the most effective response we can. QUESTION: Do you think it would have been stronger if you had gotten it immediately? MR. WOOD: Well, look, I can’t speak for the – I’m not up in New York. I know that it’s a complex issue. I’ve worked up at the UN, and I know that these things take time, particularly when you’re talking about something as complex as the North Korea issue. Ma’am. QUESTION: You mentioned that Secretary Clinton made a phone call with her counterparts, with China and Russia. Do you have any readout of that, and could you please introduce their conversation, what they talked -- MR. WOOD: Yeah. Look, obviously, in the aftermath of this launch, the Secretary had conversations, telephonic conversations with those other members of the Six-Party framework, excluding the North. And it was basically to express the mutual concern about this launch and how we go forward in trying to prevent the North from undertaking this type of activity again or engaging in any kind of proliferation of any weapons or materials. And so that was the gist of all of the conversations. It was really to express the concern that we all have about what the North is engaged in and to focus on how we go forward. And we’re under no illusions; this is going to be difficult diplomacy, but I think the Secretary and her counterparts all agree that this is something that we have to pursue seriously, vigorously, and we will. And that’s the basic readout I have from the conversation. QUESTION: The Chinese readout of the phone call – or her phone call with the foreign minister is awfully different than yours. They – Xinhua says that it was all about the shootings in Binghamton. MR. WOOD: Well, that issue came up, but it was about this issue. QUESTION: On that? QUESTION: One more -- MR. WOOD: Why don’t we (inaudible), please. QUESTION: It’s just – I know you keep on saying that it’s going to take time to work this out. MR. WOOD: Right. QUESTION: But the countries involved have known about this for two months that North Korea is going to launch this missile. And they – you have been coordinating the response for the last, at least, six weeks. What make – what gives you confidence that these countries are now going to change their positions after they’ve had plenty of time to think about it already? MR. WOOD: Well, look, this is a challenge that if it’s not dealt with, will not go away. And this has been a high priority for this Administration and for the other members of the Six-Party Talks, you know, to basically reach that goal of a denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The North agreed to support – it’s a part of the Six-Party framework. We want to get back to that framework. It’s in everyone’s interest to see the North denuclearize. But it’s a challenge, and I’ve outlined why we haven’t gotten further in that process. And as I said, this launch does not help matters. It makes things much more complicated. And we’re trying to deal with it at the Security Council. I can’t tell you whether, you know, in the end we’re going to be able to deter the North in the future from doing these types of activities, but I think everyone is focused – certainly, the Secretary is very focused on this – Ambassador Rice. And we’re going to get – and we’re going to try as hard as we can to get that effective response. But I really don’t have anything more I can say on it than that. Same subject? QUESTION: Yes. Would you like to see North Korea come back to the negotiation table, or would you rather keep them isolated as a punishment? MR. WOOD: Keep them as a - ? QUESTION: Isolated. QUESTION: I said would you like to see North Korea come back to the negotiation table? MR. WOOD: Yes. QUESTION: Or would you rather keep them isolated as a punishment? MR. WOOD: North Korea is isolating itself. We want to see the North come back to the negotiating table and the Six-Party framework. I’ve said that before. So the choice is really the North’s. Same subject? QUESTION: Yeah, one practical – another practical thing. You said that the Secretary had spoken to the other members other than North Korea of the Six-Party Talks. MR. WOOD: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: I was aware that she had spoken to the foreign ministers of China, Russia, and Japan. She also spoke to the South Korean? MR. WOOD: That’s correct. QUESTION: All right. And that was all yesterday morning? MR. WOOD: That was all yesterday. QUESTION: Thank you. QUESTION: I have an impractical question. Given that -- MR. WOOD: Impractical? (Laughter.) QUESTION: Quite in contrast to Arshad’s manner of questioning. Given that you had an effective and unified UN Security Council prohibition on the books and North Korea flagrantly violated it and took its sweet time doing so in open fashion, why should anyone regard that the UN Security Council is an appropriate venue in which to pursue recourse now? MR. WOOD: Well, look, the Security Council deals with these questions of international peace and security. It’s the appropriate mechanism for dealing with this. There is, as you know, James, a resolution, 1718, that deals with this question. And we think there needs to be – since there – since we believe there was clearly a violation of 1718, there needs to be a response coming from the Security Council, and that’s what we’re seeking right now.   ….   QUESTION: Hi. The Russian ambassador to the UN was quoted in the Post today as saying, regarding North Korea, “Every state has the right to the peaceful use of outer space.” That seems to be their position. What is the U.S. response to that? MR. WOOD: Mary Beth, our response is basically that this launch violated UN Security Council Resolution 1718. It’s a violation of international law. And we need – we’re working in the Council to try to come away with an effective response to this launching. Iran needs to see that there are going to be consequences, and so that’s where we are at this point. QUESTION: North Korea. MR. WOOD: I’m sorry. Did – North Korea. QUESTION: Oh. QUESTION: Iran, too. MR. WOOD: Sir.

 

 

Wolfgang A. Bednarzek

Public Affairs

U.S. Mission To International

Organizations in Vienna

Visit our website  http://vienna.usmission.gov

Wagramerstrasse 17-19

A-1220 Vienna, Austria

tel:  +43 (1) 313-39-4741

fax  +43 (1) 313 39-4772

cell: +43 664 8333977

 

This email is UNCLASSIFIED iaw E.O. 12958