DPRK Forum

I saw this press conference on C-Span earlier today and found it pretty interesting. Have a watch (about 45 mins.), and decide for yourself what is between the lines:

Specific to North Korea (Full transcript here):

In East Asia, we have made progress this year toward our goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. After agreeing to implement the September 2005 joint statement, North Korea shut down and is now disabling its Yongbyon facilities. We expect North Korea to honor the pledge it made in the six-party talks, to make a complete and accurate declaration of all its nuclear programs. Of course, other challenges and flashpoints of conflict remain in East Asia and we will monitor those closely. In the Taiwan Strait, for example, the United States remains committed to peace and security. We oppose any threat to use force and any unilateral move by either side to change the status quo. We have a One China policy and we do not support independence for Taiwan.

Which goes along with the previous post I made and is making a buzz around the Internet and blogs. The Taiwan issue is interesting and I want to study that further. If other readers have more information and/or background on this, I would be interested. It goes a little further on the issue:

As we have stated in recent months, we think that Taiwan’s referendum to apply to the United Nations under the name “Taiwan” is a provocative policy. It unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan Strait and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage. That is why we oppose this referendum.

I guess that makes some sense, but I am not too sure about the broader picture or the history of this issue. Anyway, going back to the nuclear issue, six-party talks and North Korea, with a lot of tight-lipness, a reporter asks about the uranium found in centrifuges:

QUESTION: I’m wondering if you can tell us what you think the significance is of the discovery of enriched uranium on these — the samples of aluminum tubes from the North Koreans. Will this complicate the six-party process and will it — does it raise any flags ahead of the declaration which they are supposed to present in about 10 days?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I’m not going to comment on specific reports or certainly on intelligence matters, but we have been very clear that we expect a declaration from North Korea that is complete and that is accurate. As you know, we have long been concerned about highly enriched uranium as an alternative route in North Korea and so we expect there to be a declaration that is complete and accurate. I also want to note that there is a considerable diplomatic effort underway not just by the United States, but by other members of the six-party talks to make certain that we can complete this second phase, both with the disablement, which I should underscore is going very well, and with the declaration. I sincerely hope that we’ll — it’ll be by the end of the year. But the key here is to get the process right and we’re going to stay at this until we get it right.

There was some hesitation and seemed open ended when making this statement. That was just my take on it, but like anything North Korea, it is still up in the air on what kind of card North Korea will play next. The ball is clearly in their court right now, and what they will say is unclear at the moment. As stated before, I kind of doubt North Korea will admit any uranium enrichment program. How others including the United States will react to such a thing (if it happens) is another thing altogether. If there is evidence of such activity, how will it affect the talks? That is something I am really interested in seeing taking place. However, Condi seems very mum about any details as expected.

And another question about Iran and North Korea:

QUESTION: Do you — can I ask you a follow-up? Do you see opportunities to visit countries like North Korea and Iran and Syria before the end of your term if they were to significantly improve their (inaudible)?

SECRETARY RICE: Look, we don’t have permanent enemies; the United States doesn’t. What we have is a policy that is open to ending conflict and confrontation with any country that is willing to meet us on those terms. And we’ve given very clear paths with our allies. It’s not a unilateral U.S. policy, but with our allies, we’ve given very clear paths and very clear pathways for improving relations with all of those countries. If, in fact, we continue on a path of completing the next stages on North Korean denuclearization, if the denuclearization continues, then the agreement that we signed in September 2005 and the February 19th agreement of last year is very clear on a pathway toward better political relations between the United States and North Korea. And there can be many different opportunities within that context of improved relations.

And on Iran, I continue to say that if Iran will just do the one thing that is required of it by the Security Council resolutions that have been passed, and that is suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities, then I’m prepared to meet my counterpart anyplace and anytime and anywhere and we can talk about anything. So let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Let’s see if countries are prepared to take that path. But the United States doesn’t have permanent enemies. We’re too great a country for that.

So there is the carrot. Will North Korea take it? Time will tell on that one.