The Marmot’s Hole

You know, it’s actually pretty humorous watching U.S. and South Korean diplomats go out of their way to pretend like they’re on the same page on the North Korean nuclear issue. Doubly so when they’re getting asked tough questions. This from Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon’s interview Sunday on CNN Late Edition:

BLITZER: So they would be allowed, under those circumstances, if they reach agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and inspections, if they’re in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, then at some point down the road, they could have nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes? Is that the position of the South Korean government?

BAN: We have to discuss this matter very closely, particularly with the United States, and other participating countries. But at this time, we think that when it comes to peaceful uses, like medical or industrial purposes, we should have no problem in that.

But when it comes to nuclear reactors, which may produce spent fuels and which may be used for reprocessing for eventual nuclear weapons program, then all this kind of reprocessing, enrichment facilities should be dismantled completely.

But as for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in the future, once the restoration of confidence is done, with full dismantlement of nuclear weapons, then we will have to discuss about this matter.

BLITZER: Because, as you know, there’s been lots of confusion in recent weeks on the position of the South Korean government. Your unification minister said: “Our position is that North Korea has a general right to peaceful use of nuclear energy for agricultural, medical, and power-generating purposes.” But the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said on Capitol Hill on August 12, he said this. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER HILL, ASSISTANT SEC. OF STATE FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS: What has to be absolutely clear is that they get out of the nuclear business, they get rid of these various programs they have, all programs, in fact.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: He’s very clear. All programs, they have to get out of. And he didn’t seem to leave any wiggle room there at all.

BAN: Basically, we are on the same page. We do not have much difference on that point. He also said that this use of peaceful nuclear energy is kind of some (inaudible) theoretical issue. We think that this is sort of some issue in the future, without much substance.

So we are of the view, as I repeat, that once North Korea dismantles complete nuclear weapons and programs, and returns to NPT and abides by all IAEA safeguards, then I think the restoration — the restoration of confidence will be made, and we can discuss about this issue.

Ban should count himself lucky. Check out the hazing U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Adam Ereli had to take at the hands of one reporter during a press briefing on August 11.

QUESTION: Similarly, in South Korea, their Unification Minister Chung Dong-young has told a South Korean internet website that North Korea should be allowed to have peaceful nuclear programs. And is that a big rift between the U.S. and South Korea now? Is that what led to the —

MR. ERELI: There’s no rift between the United States and South Korea. We are close allies. We are close partners in a broad bilateral relationship and particularly in our common approach to denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. And I think that kind of partnership was seen very clearly in 13 days of intensive negotiations in Beijing.

I don’t have really much to add to this issue. I think Ambassador Hill has addressed the whole substance of the negotiations over the last three days, both in Beijing and here. You have his remarks on the record, which go to the points that you raised.

I would simply note that there’s a good draft agreement of principles on the table. We look forward to coming back to the talks on the 29th and moving forward on that basis.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that, please? Adam, there is a direct conflict between what Ambassador Hill has been saying and what the Unification Minister is saying today, and you say everything is rosy-rosy with the South Koreans, and I just don’t —

MR. ERELI: I said, frankly, that there’s a negotiation going on, and in any negotiation you’ve got at least as many views as there are parties, sometimes more. The fact of the matter is we’ve made important progress. We’ve made good progress in Beijing. And we have a draft agreement of principles on the table that I think represents an emerging consensus. Certainly there’s unity among the five on a number of issues in that statement of principles and the place for the discussion of this, of these issues, is in Beijing. It’s not here. I think what you’re seeing emerging from the 13 days of talks is a set of common goals, or an emerging set of common goals and common approaches. They’re working through those. They needed to take a pause to refer some issues to capitals. That’s where we are. They’re going to come back on the 29th and continue their work. And that’s where the negotiation is going to take place, not from here.

QUESTION: If I can just follow up on that, Adam. I’m sorry, from that podium, both yourself and both Tom, when we were asking about this question about North Korea’s ability to use civilian nuclear capacity, you said it’s not only the United States that’s opposed to that, it’s Japan and South Korea. We now have a statement by the Unification Minster of South Korea saying that’s not true, so we’re trying to get some clarity here.

MR. ERELI: I’m not going to speak for the South Korean Unification Minister.

QUESTION: He’s spoken for himself.

MR. ERELI: I’ll speak for the United States Government. And for the United States Government, our views on civilian nuclear use, our views on the issue of denuclearization, I think, are very well known and I don’t have any elaboration to make on it.

QUESTION: But about your policy, you’ve told us that there was one view about the denuclearized Peninsula and you were of one mind with the South Koreans, with the Japanese. Now that you’ve seen the statements, you’re saying, “Oh, there are many views among the parties,” so —

MR. ERELI: Look, this is a complex negotiation. It’s more than one issue; there are a number of issues out there. There’s a common view, a common acceptance of the importance of and the criticality of and the centrality of denuclearization. On the issue of light-water reactors, which is what the statement of principle or the agreement of principles broke up over, Ambassador Hill has been very clear that there were five who agreed that that was a non-starter and one that didn’t and that, because of that gap, it was determined that a recess was the best way to handle it to give North Korea time to go to its capital and talk it out among themselves. And that’s where we are.

But as far as the whole statement of principle and everything — the agreement of principles — and everything that’s in it, again, we’re in a negotiation. We’re in six-party talks. And that’s a process where you get six parties around the table and you’ve got to come up with something that everybody agrees to and that’s the dynamic we’re in.

QUESTION: You said that —

MR. ERELI: And I’m not going to conduct those negotiations from here.

QUESTION: No, you’re not — I didn’t realize you were negotiating with the South Koreans, but when you say, “That’s where we are,” are you saying you don’t think the South Korean position has changed, even though you’ve seen these rumors?

MR. ERELI: I’m not going to characterize the South Korean position for you.

QUESTION: Can I just — a point of information just to see if we’re discussing the same terms. I’m wondering whether or not the question of whether or not they have light-water reactors is one question that is apart from their ability to maintain a civilian nuclear program because you said and Ambassador Hill said that they were — everybody was against them having the light-water reactors, which would not exclude them keeping some other form of reactors. Is that what’s happening?

MR. ERELI: Again, I will speak to our view and our view is, as Ambassador Hill has said, that we have a history here. We have a history of a country using — quickly converting, on short notice, a civilian nuclear program for military use and that is an issue that needs to be addressed. It’s an issue that needs to be taken to account when moving forward and dealing with this issue of broader nuclear denuclearization or comprehensive denuclearization. And I’ll leave it at that.

Yes.

Now that’s entertainment.