Chris Hill Returns from Pyongyang; Bush Writes to Kim Jong Il

After returning from a weekend in bucolic North Korea, Chris Hill stopped to talk to reporters in the lobby of his hotel in Beijing. As before, I’ll post the full State Department transcript of the Q&A, but here are some highlights:

• Hill visited Yongbyon and pronounced himself satisfied with the progress of “disablement” activities there. Although Yongbyon was already at the end of its useful life, the work there now involves removing the fuel, cutting valves, and using heavy equipment — in short, it’s heavy work.

• Contrary to expectations, however, Hill did not see the North Korean disclosure of its nuclear programs, weapons, or materials. Nor did he see a draft or get much of a preview, although it’s apparent that there is still disagreement over the content just three weeks before the deadline. A reporter asked about HEU, but Hill refused to go into details.

• Hill, who is conscious that some of us “on the sidelines” are “not cheering” for him, continues to sound very insistent that the disclosure must be complete and must be handed over by December 31st.  Not all of the signals are so clear, however; read the AP the article linked below, and it’s not only apparent that North Korea will miss the deadline, Condi Rice is publicly saying she’s not too upset about that.

• Also contrary to expectations, there will be no session of six-party talks this week, and there probably won’t be one this year. That means that the parties will have seen the North Korean declaration before the next time they meet. South Korea will also have a new government, and in all probability, a new negotiator.

Since then, President Bush has emphasized the importance of the declaration being complete in a letter to the other parties to the six-party talks:

“I want to emphasize that the declaration must be complete and accurate if we are to continue our progress,” Bush wrote, according to an excerpt of the Dec. 1 letter obtained by The Associated Press.

The Bush administration sought to play down the diplomatic significance of the letter — the president’s first to the reclusive North Korean leader. Yet, it reflected how U.S. policy toward the nation has shifted from the days when Bush shunned the dictator.

The letter might sate Kim’s craving to be recognized by the U.S. as a player on the world stage. However, White House press secretary Dana Perino said Bush meant it as a “reminder” to North Korea that it has pledged to provide — by the end of the month — a complete and accurate disclosure of its nuclear programs. [AP, Deb Reichmann]

Reichmann reads this as a sign of warming relations, but if the six-party process is about to collapse under the weight of North Korean proliferation and mendacity, this does seem like the perfect “told you so” setup for it.

A U.S. official told the AP that the letter to North Korea refers to a need to resolve three main sticking points: the exact amount of weapons-grade nuclear material the North produced, the number of warheads it built and whether and how North Korea may have passed nuclear material or knowledge to others.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe details of the delicate diplomacy, said the letter underscored Bush’s desire to resolve the nuclear dispute, and made plain that North Korea cannot skirt requirements to fully explain the extent, use and possible spread of nuclear material and technology. * * * *

The Bush letter is a diplomatic exclamation point because North Korea has been hearing the same message from Hill. The correspondence also serves a domestic political purpose — signaling to conservative critics of the North Korea deal that the United States will not roll back its requirements or accept less than a full declaration of the North’s nuclear program.

The question of proliferation has taken on greater significance, and become a political hurdle for the Bush administration, since Israel‘s air strike on a suspected Syrian nuclear site Sept. 6. Intelligence reports suggested Syria was cooperating in some fashion with North Korea in building the site.

The news that North Korea may have been working with others as recently as this year, after it had agreed to give up its weapons, reinvigorated U.S. domestic opposition to what some conservatives in Congress see as an overly generous deal with an unreliable country.

Read and decide for yourself. Whatever our intentions, let’s hope that the White House is at least smart enough not to make any dramatic announcements until after the Korean election.

What strikes me about the Hill transcripts are the comments that reveal how frequently and quickly the terms of this deal evolve (the content of the declaration), morph (the manner of its delivery), vanish (deadlines), and materialize from the ether (the return of the $25M from Banco Delta). Either there’s a thick sheaf of secret agreements somewhere in Beijing, or the deal is so amorphous as to lack any objective meaning at all. Really, if the North Koreans insisted that we’d agreed to carve Kim Il Sung’s face onto Mount Rushmore, how could we prove otherwise?

Either way, I hope you’ll join me in thanking the OFK reader who’s providing these transcripts. Much appreciated!

QUESTION: How was the discussion with the DPRK?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: It was a good two and a half day trip. The first part of it was, I made a visit down to Yongbyon. And, indeed, there is a lot of disabling activity going on. We went through all three sections of the facility there. That is, the fuel fabrication facility, the reactor, and then finally the reprocessing center. There is disabling activity going on at all three. They have done a lot of work in preparation of discharging the fuel in the reactor, which I think will have a big effect — because that will mean they can?t easily put it back. That will enable the disabling to be of real value, so that we have over a year worth of disabling.

We have Americans there on the spot staying in the guest quarters there and working together with the DPRK counterparts. I?d say the work is proceeding rather well. We put on protective gear in order to go inside some of the facilities and see what they are doing. And it really involves taking apart equipment and making it very difficult to get the facility started again. So that was mainly Monday?s activities. Then on Tuesday I had talks, first of all, starting with the Foreign Minister. Or — I should say — on Monday, at the end of that day at Yongbyon, I met with the head of their nuclear energy agency, Dr. Rhee.

Then on Tuesday, I met with the Foreign Minister and then had lengthy discussions with Kim Kye Gwan. Now the discussions with Kim Kye Gwan centered on the activities leading to what we are calling Phase II. That is, leading to the end of the year. We talked about disabling, and I think we had a good understanding of what we are doing on disabling. But we also talked about the declaration that they are preparing. And we wanted to make very clear that when they submit the declaration to the Six Parties, it is important that the declaration, even as a first draft, should nonetheless be complete and correct. And we emphasized that. And I discussed some of the elements that I would want to see in the declaration to ensure that when the declaration comes forward there are no surprises.

So that was mainly the focus with Vice Minister Kim Kye Gwan. We also discussed the next phase, although I think Mr. Kim preferred to keep the discussion on Phase II — because we have not yet completed Phase II. But I raised the issue of our strong view that we need to get through all of these phases and complete the process by ?8. I saw the Vice President of the People?s Assembly, Mr. Yang. Then I saw, the next day, I saw Kim Kye Gwan once again for additional discussions. We didn?t really have a lot of time to get around Pyongyang. I did see — We have a person who is working on the disabling and working on the administrative arrangements for the disabling staying at the Koryo

Hotel, and I was able to see him. His name is Pat O?Brien. In addition, I did see, I did one trip to go down and have a look at their subway system. So that was about it.

QUESTION: Ambassador Hill, on the declaration, what seems to be the hold-up on that? You?ve been expecting a draft copy for quite a while now. What seems to be the hold up?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I hate to call it a hold-up — except that our concern is, we don?t want a declaration that arrives and that immediately people see what is missing. So the DPRK is under an obligation to provide a complete and correct declaration. So we wanted to discuss what we see as, what we believe is necessary for complete and correct. So I think the DPRK is pretty close to providing a declaration, but we want it to be as good as possible.

QUESTION: And did, while you were up there, you get a chance to talk about what is in the declaration, or did you get a chance to see a draft copy?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No. We discussed what they plan to have in the declaration, and we wanted to make sure that they would also include all the facilities, materials, and programs that the DPRK has had in the nuclear era in these many years that it has had these nuclear ambitions.

QUESTION: Is the problem with HEU?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I?m not prepared to say it is a problem. But we need to make sure that all programs need to be included.

QUESTION: South Korea has said that North Korea might not be able to dismantle by the end of the year. What is your take on that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: You mean disable by the end of the year?

QUESTION: Disable.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think the disabling has gone very well. You know, one of the issues has been the discharge of fuel — which is very important, but we want it to be done safely. It was at our instigation that we slowed down the discharge to ensure that it would be done safely. I think it is fair to say the disabling is going very well.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) by the end of the year?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Again, we are not looking for some sort of cliffhanger, five minutes of twelve. What we want to see is that this is going on as quickly as possible and as safely as possible, and we are very much convinced that that is the case. So disabling is going fine. And I thought it was very significant that all

members of the Six Parties came out and saw last week, and I think they had that same impression.

QUESTION: Is there a difference between what you think is necessary on the declaration and what the North Koreans think is necessary?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I don?t want to go into details, but there are definitely some differences there, yes. But I don?t want to go into details. We are trying to work with them to make sure we don?t have differences, and the atmosphere of the meeting was very cooperative. So I don?t want to suggest that we are at some impasse or that we can?t seem to solve something, because the atmosphere was positive. But, yes indeed, there are some differences.

QUESTION: Not so big differences?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, again, I just told you I don?t want to get into characterizing those differences.

QUESTION: But is this the reason why we can not have Six-Party Talks this week?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: You know, I am not sure what is the reason we are not having Six-Party Talks, because I think there are various things to talk about. But I?ll be seeing the Chinese tomorrow. But you should ask the Chinese, who are the ones who talk to all the parties. I?m not sure that this has anything to do with the declaration, because although if we had had Six Parties we would have wanted to talk about the declaration, I don?t think that it has been the issue. I think it?s some other things, probably having to do with scheduling.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) tomorrow?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think my plan is, I?m going to stay here tomorrow. And then on Friday morning I will go through Narita, and I hope I will have the opportunity to meet with Ken Sasae and brief him in a little more detail than I am briefing you all.

QUESTION: Have you discussed with the North Koreans about the terrorism list issues, and also does that have anything to do with them not coming up with a list yet?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Second question, no, I do not think so. It does not seem to. And, yes, every time we talk to them we?ve talked about the terrorism list and the Trading with the Enemy Act.

QUESTION: Would you say that you made progress in your discussion with Mr. Kim Kye Gwan on the declaration?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yes, I think we did actually.

QUESTION: Do you think you?ve narrowed your differences?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I can see you?re writing an article, and you?re looking for ready-made quotes to fit your article. But look, I think we have had a very useful exchange on the subject. In that sense, I think we have made progress. I won?t really know until I see a declaration though. So I don?t want to go too far in characterizing the progress, because I need to see what their declaration is going to look like.

QUESTION: Did they give you an estimate of when that declaration might be available?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Certainly in time to meet the December 31st deadline.

QUESTION: On the enrichment issue and the declaration, is your concern that North Korea is not going to include that entire program in the declaration, (inaudible) certain elements of the enrichment program?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Again, I indicated that I do not want to discuss the specifics, but to be sure we are looking for elements. As we discussed the declaration, as we discussed materials, installations, and programs we found that items in each of these three lists were not there that in our view should be there. And so we discussed those items that we believe should be included in the declaration. Again, I don?t want to get into specifics at this point.

QUESTION: Do you anticipate the heads of delegation meeting in December?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think it might have been possible in December. But I?ve just been out here this week, and I?m not sure I want to come around and turn back so soon before Christmas. So we will have to see, but it may slip to the beginning of January.

QUESTION: So you might not have a full declaration before the end of the year?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, no, I think we will have it, and then there will be the question of how it is looked at by the five other members. And I think, from a holiday point of view, it might be difficult to get the five members around a table ?six all together, of course, since the DPRK will have to be there. So I am going to talk to the Chinese and see. This is their process, and let?s see what they want to do.

And, by the way, the Chinese have been very, very helpful in terms of assisting in getting the material into the DPRK, because most of it is being purchased in China and being brought to the DPRK. We are talking about heavy earth-moving equipment, large lorries, front-end loaders, forklifts, large heaters for use inside warehouse-sized places. We have a lot of tanker trucks bringing fuel. We have a lot of major items that are being brought

in through China. It has not been done before, and we?re very pleased at the cooperation we?re getting on that.
Remarks by Christopher R. Hill

Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Evening Walk-Through, Kerry Center Hotel

Beijing, China

December 5, 2007

QUESTION: How was the discussion with the DPRK?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: It was a good two and a half day trip. The first part of it was, I made a visit down to Yongbyon. And, indeed, there is a lot of disabling activity going on. We went through all three sections of the facility there. That is, the fuel fabrication facility, the reactor, and then finally the reprocessing center. There is disabling activity going on at all three. They have done a lot of work in preparation of discharging the fuel in the reactor, which I think will have a big effect — because that will mean they can?t easily put it back. That will enable the disabling to be of real value, so that we have over a year worth of disabling.

We have Americans there on the spot staying in the guest quarters there and working together with the DPRK counterparts. I?d say the work is proceeding rather well. We put on protective gear in order to go inside some of the facilities and see what they are doing. And it really involves taking apart equipment and making it very difficult to get the facility started again. So that was mainly Monday?s activities. Then on Tuesday I had talks, first of all, starting with the Foreign Minister. Or — I should say — on Monday, at the end of that day at Yongbyon, I met with the head of their nuclear energy agency, Dr. Rhee.

Then on Tuesday, I met with the Foreign Minister and then had lengthy discussions with Kim Kye Gwan. Now the discussions with Kim Kye Gwan centered on the activities leading to what we are calling Phase II. That is, leading to the end of the year. We talked about disabling, and I think we had a good understanding of what we are doing on disabling. But we also talked about the declaration that they are preparing. And we wanted to make very clear that when they submit the declaration to the Six Parties, it is important that the declaration, even as a first draft, should nonetheless be complete and correct. And we emphasized that. And I discussed some of the elements that I would want to see in the declaration to ensure that when the declaration comes forward there are no surprises.

So that was mainly the focus with Vice Minister Kim Kye Gwan. We also discussed the next phase, although I think Mr. Kim preferred to keep the discussion on Phase II — because we have not yet completed Phase II. But I raised the issue of our strong view that we need to get through all of these phases and complete the process by ?8. I saw the Vice President of the People?s Assembly, Mr. Yang. Then I saw, the next day, I saw Kim Kye Gwan once again for additional discussions. We didn?t really have a lot of time to get around Pyongyang. I did see — We have a person who is working on the disabling and working on the administrative arrangements for the disabling staying at the Koryo

Hotel, and I was able to see him. His name is Pat O?Brien. In addition, I did see, I did one trip to go down and have a look at their subway system. So that was about it.

QUESTION: Ambassador Hill, on the declaration, what seems to be the hold-up on that? You?ve been expecting a draft copy for quite a while now. What seems to be the hold up?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I hate to call it a hold-up — except that our concern is, we don?t want a declaration that arrives and that immediately people see what is missing. So the DPRK is under an obligation to provide a complete and correct declaration. So we wanted to discuss what we see as, what we believe is necessary for complete and correct. So I think the DPRK is pretty close to providing a declaration, but we want it to be as good as possible.

QUESTION: And did, while you were up there, you get a chance to talk about what is in the declaration, or did you get a chance to see a draft copy?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No. We discussed what they plan to have in the declaration, and we wanted to make sure that they would also include all the facilities, materials, and programs that the DPRK has had in the nuclear era in these many years that it has had these nuclear ambitions.

QUESTION: Is the problem with HEU?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I?m not prepared to say it is a problem. But we need to make sure that all programs need to be included.

QUESTION: South Korea has said that North Korea might not be able to dismantle by the end of the year. What is your take on that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: You mean disable by the end of the year?

QUESTION: Disable.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think the disabling has gone very well. You know, one of the issues has been the discharge of fuel — which is very important, but we want it to be done safely. It was at our instigation that we slowed down the discharge to ensure that it would be done safely. I think it is fair to say the disabling is going very well.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) by the end of the year?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Again, we are not looking for some sort of cliffhanger, five minutes of twelve. What we want to see is that this is going on as quickly as possible and as safely as possible, and we are very much convinced that that is the case. So disabling is going fine. And I thought it was very significant that all

members of the Six Parties came out and saw last week, and I think they had that same impression.

QUESTION: Is there a difference between what you think is necessary on the declaration and what the North Koreans think is necessary?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I don?t want to go into details, but there are definitely some differences there, yes. But I don?t want to go into details. We are trying to work with them to make sure we don?t have differences, and the atmosphere of the meeting was very cooperative. So I don?t want to suggest that we are at some impasse or that we can?t seem to solve something, because the atmosphere was positive. But, yes indeed, there are some differences.

QUESTION: Not so big differences?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, again, I just told you I don?t want to get into characterizing those differences.

QUESTION: But is this the reason why we can not have Six-Party Talks this week?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: You know, I am not sure what is the reason we are not having Six-Party Talks, because I think there are various things to talk about. But I?ll be seeing the Chinese tomorrow. But you should ask the Chinese, who are the ones who talk to all the parties. I?m not sure that this has anything to do with the declaration, because although if we had had Six Parties we would have wanted to talk about the declaration, I don?t think that it has been the issue. I think it?s some other things, probably having to do with scheduling.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) tomorrow?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think my plan is, I?m going to stay here tomorrow. And then on Friday morning I will go through Narita, and I hope I will have the opportunity to meet with Ken Sasae and brief him in a little more detail than I am briefing you all.

QUESTION: Have you discussed with the North Koreans about the terrorism list issues, and also does that have anything to do with them not coming up with a list yet?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Second question, no, I do not think so. It does not seem to. And, yes, every time we talk to them we?ve talked about the terrorism list and the Trading with the Enemy Act.

QUESTION: Would you say that you made progress in your discussion with Mr. Kim Kye Gwan on the declaration?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Yes, I think we did actually.

QUESTION: Do you think you?ve narrowed your differences?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I can see you?re writing an article, and you?re looking for ready-made quotes to fit your article. But look, I think we have had a very useful exchange on the subject. In that sense, I think we have made progress. I won?t really know until I see a declaration though. So I don?t want to go too far in characterizing the progress, because I need to see what their declaration is going to look like.

QUESTION: Did they give you an estimate of when that declaration might be available?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Certainly in time to meet the December 31st deadline.

QUESTION: On the enrichment issue and the declaration, is your concern that North Korea is not going to include that entire program in the declaration, (inaudible) certain elements of the enrichment program?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Again, I indicated that I do not want to discuss the specifics, but to be sure we are looking for elements. As we discussed the declaration, as we discussed materials, installations, and programs we found that items in each of these three lists were not there that in our view should be there. And so we discussed those items that we believe should be included in the declaration. Again, I don?t want to get into specifics at this point.

QUESTION: Do you anticipate the heads of delegation meeting in December?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think it might have been possible in December. But I?ve just been out here this week, and I?m not sure I want to come around and turn back so soon before Christmas. So we will have to see, but it may slip to the beginning of January.

QUESTION: So you might not have a full declaration before the end of the year?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, no, I think we will have it, and then there will be the question of how it is looked at by the five other members. And I think, from a holiday point of view, it might be difficult to get the five members around a table ?six all together, of course, since the DPRK will have to be there. So I am going to talk to the Chinese and see. This is their process, and let?s see what they want to do.

And, by the way, the Chinese have been very, very helpful in terms of assisting in getting the material into the DPRK, because most of it is being purchased in China and being brought to the DPRK. We are talking about heavy earth-moving equipment, large lorries, front-end loaders, forklifts, large heaters for use inside warehouse-sized places. We have a lot of tanker trucks bringing fuel. We have a lot of major items that are being brought

in through China. It has not been done before, and we?re very pleased at the cooperation we?re getting on that.

QUESTION: The original plan was to get the draft and then go back-and-forth and get it finalized. Since you will not have the heads of delegation meeting, will [it] be more like a one-time declaration?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, I don?t think we?re quite in a position to tell you. I think you are quite right; the original idea was to get a draft and start working it. But I think what we want to do is make sure that the draft we get is as complete and correct as possible, because we know there are a lot of people ?cheering on from the sidelines or not cheering on from the sidelines ?who would perhaps leap at the opportunity to look at a draft that is not complete and not correct. So, in short, I think it is very important that whatever first draft gets out there is as complete and as correct as possible.

Now you raise an important question. How are we going to do this in the Six Parties? Because we do at some point need a meeting. Ideally, we should be doing this in time for December 31, because it is the time we all laid out for us. But a lot of members have problems trying to leave their families at Christmas to go and look at some pieces of paper because we want it to be done before the 31st and not immediately after the 31st. So let me talk to the Chinese and see how they see this.

QUESTION: When you were in Pyongyang, did the light water reactor issue come up?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: No, it did not.

QUESTION: Did you suggest to the North Koreans that they not present the declaration because you wanted a more complete draft, or were they at this time prepared to present it?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I think the North Koreans are prepared to move very fast. But I think it was Mr. Kim Kye Gwan who also said, we don?t want to rush this and cause problems. “Haste makes waste,” I think is what he said. So I don?t think we have any big disagreement on that. But they were very interested in showing that they are meeting our timelines.

QUESTION: Do the North Koreans have any other issues that they want resolved, energy issues or anything like that, before they present the declaration?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, to be sure, we?ve been ?The various members of the Six Parties or, I should say, four of the Six Parties have been organizing energy assistance, and we?ve been kind of rotating each month. So the North Koreans are very aware of when the energy arrives. In fact, one of the plants had to shut down because the energy hadn?t arrived on time. So, yes, they are very aware of energy issues,

but they are also very aware that we are doing everything we can do to work on this and to keep it moving.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: I am so looking forward to going up to my hotel room and sleeping, and then I?ll think about tomorrow. But, yes, I am seeing Wu Dawei. I think I also have some bilateral meetings at the Chinese Foreign Ministry, and I?m sure there are some other meetings. I?m sure the Embassy can give you a read out on what they all are. But my plan is to be here through tomorrow night, and then leave early Friday to get to Narita, and then see Ken Sasae.

QUESTION: And then continue on to Washington?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: And then continue on to Washington.

QUESTION: So what time are you leaving tomorrow morning?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Tomorrow morning? I think it?s — Check with the Embassy. I want to say it is a nine thirty meeting, but —

AIDE: Eight forty

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: So I?m leaving here at 8:40?

AIDE: Yes.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: So if you show up at 8:41 ?(Laughter)

All right. See you later.

###