State Department Noon Briefing

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 2001 - 12:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

Q: On North Korea, can you update me on where things stand with the
Framework Agreement? There are some lawmakers, I guess with the
occasion of a new Administration, who are kind of renewing their
expressions of concerns about the Framework Agreement. And I wonder
whether the Bush Administration policy is to simply continue with it
and carry it out in due course, or whether it is being reviewed, one
of the things that's being reviewed or examined?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm trying to remember when the Secretary said it. We
have certainly made quite clear that we stand by the Framework
Agreement. Secretary Powell has made clear that he wants to work on
the basis of the understandings, agreements and work that had been
done in the past. I don't have any new announcements on where we go
from here. But in terms of the agreements that are being concluded and
are operating, we remain committed to carrying them out, and we are
continuing to do that. That kind of discussion with the North Koreans
does indeed continue.

Q: Is the issue of future elements of the agreement, such as the
providing of the reactors, which I guess is the big part of the
agreement, is that essentially automatic, or does there continue to be
a whole series of, you know, conditions and hurdles that have to be
cleared for the agreement to be carried out?

MR. BOUCHER: I haven't actually read the details of the agreement so I
don't know what the hurdles are or the steps along the way or how the
process might be mutually enforcing, but our intention is to carry
through these agreements completely and fully.

Q: South Korea, same peninsula. Mr. Putin and Mr. Kim seem to be
making kissy-face a little bit, and I wondered if the State Department
has any observations about South Korea's apparently increased interest
in Moscow. And also, whether they're not on the money that if you
could get away from the - if you could do something about the North
Korean missile threat, maybe you don't have to go into this futuristic
defense system.

Could you try mostly what you think of the Kim-Putin relationship --

MR. BOUCHER: Which is fine by us.

Q: - which is geared partly to undoing your missile defense plan?

MR. BOUCHER: We have a very strong alliance with the South Koreans. We
work very closely with them in all manner of things. We discuss things
very closely with them. We have relations with Russia. They have
relations in Russia. So do all our friends around the world. There
shouldn't be anything unusual in that. Those involve the occasional
visit. I think we're quite confident in our alliance with the South
Koreans and are confident in the things that we do together. So the
fact that Mr. Putin comes to visit doesn't really bother us one way or
the other.

Q: How about their affirmation of the sanctity of the ABM Treaty and
the notion that if you could somehow - not only you-- but if North
Korea could be persuaded to stop worrying the world about its missile
programs, then maybe you wouldn't have to go ahead with this dream you
all have.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, these are two different notions, and I can assure
you, Barry, it's not a dream.

Q: So far it is. It has never worked yet. The technology doesn't work,
so it's dream.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, you can be the Pentagon correspondent and I'll be
the State Department Spokesman.

The question that you raised about the South Koreans and the ABM
Treaty, I think they have said various things about it since the
communiqué was issued, and I would refer you back to their statements.
Obviously we'll have a chance to discuss the new environment, the new
situation with regard to missile defense, with President Kim Dae Jung
when he comes to visit next week to the White House.

Q: Is there a separate session with the Secretary?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if the Secretary is having a separate
session. I'm sure he'll participate in the White House meetings. So
they have discussed their position in advance and obviously will talk
to them about missile defense when they get here.

I think they have recognized that we face a new era. We face a new
threat of proliferation in the world and that we need to do something
about it. And that is something that we will obviously want to discuss
with them, because they are such a close ally. Next week.

Second of all, I don't know that I can deal completely and thoroughly
in the time allotted with the premise that somehow diplomacy vis-à-vis
the North, elimination of the missile threat in the North, would
obviate the need for missile defenses. We all know that the threat of
proliferation in the world these days is not just from one location;
and, therefore, as the Secretary has said, we need to work on
offensive weapons, we need to work on nonproliferation, we need to
work on diplomacy and we need to work on defense. And that an
up-to-date and modern strategic concept needs to include all those
elements, and it surely will.

Q: Just to let it go, but the first phase was to worry about North
Korea; the second phase was Iran. They were five years apart. Korea
was perceived, at least by the past Administration, as being the most
worrisome rogue state out there. And I just thought if some way was
reached to eliminate that worry, maybe you could defer or relax this
--

MR. BOUCHER: If you think that, I'd just say that's fine. You can
think what you want, but that's not what the Administration thinks.

Q: So it's not geared to North Korea particularly?

MR. BOUCHER: The North Korean threat is obviously of concern, but
there are other threats out there. And the whole prospect of the way
the world has changed in terms of proliferation has made it quite
clear to people in this Administration that we need a missile defense,
and we will move forward when the technology is there to protect
ourselves.