[Cankor] Report #216

[cankor at cankor.ca]

Dear subscriber,

Welcome to issue #216 of the CanKor Report.

For articles not original to CanKor, direct links are available in the
Contents section, should you wish to consult the originals on the internet.
If the links no longer function, you may refer to the full text articles
appended to the issue.

For back issues, archives and other content, please visit our website:
http://www.cankor.ca

The CanKor team

*************************************************
CANADA-KOREA ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SERVICE

CanKor # 216

Tuesday, 16 August 2005
*************************************************

The "taboo-busting" visit by a high-level DPRK delegation is called a 
"watershed moment" of inter-Korean relations. In South Korea to celebrate 
the liberation of Korea from Japanese colonial rule 60 years ago, delegation 
members visit the National Cemetery, burial place of soldiers killed in the 
Korean War. When they bow respectfully to honour the dead, the gesture has a 
strong emotional impact on the South Korean public. The delegation also 
visits the National Assembly, the hospitalized former president Kim Dae-jung 
and President Roh Moo-hyun. Sceptical observers call the visit a propaganda 
coup for the DPRK.

The first virtual reunion of Korean family members divided since the Korean 
War takes place via fibre-optic cables across the DMZ on 15 August. 226 
family members take part in teleconferences broadcast live over ROK 
television.

North and South Korea independently announce amnesties to mark Liberation 
Day. More than 4 million people are pardoned for various crimes and 
misdemeanours in the ROK, including those convicted under the National 
Security Law of pro-communist activities and unauthorised contacts with the 
North. The DPRK amnesty decree, which is to take effect 1 September, does 
not specify numbers or crimes. The last amnesties took place in 2002 -- in 
the ROK to celebrate Korea's independence from Japan, and in the DPRK to 
celebrate Kim Il Sung's 90th birthday.

The two Koreas test a cross-border military hotline set up to avoid 
accidental border clashes, particularly the naval skirmishes that regularly 
erupt at the Northern Limit Line, an invisible oceanic border not recognized 
by the DPRK.

This week's FOCUS features transcripts of two television interviews with the 
chief DPRK and US delegates to the six-party talks. Vice-Foreign Minister 
Kim Kye Gwan says the DPRK is willing to return to the NPT and will fully 
abide by IAEA safeguards in the operation of its non-military nuclear power 
plants. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill acknowledges that the 
DPRK seems willing to do away with their nuclear weapons systems, but under 
conditions that the USA cannot currently accept, namely the building and 
maintenance of a civilian nuclear energy programme.
*************************************************

1.   DPRK DELEGATION ENDS WATERSHED VISIT TO ROK
     http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200508/kt2005081719285510510.htm
2.   VIDEO LINK REUNITES LONG-DIVIDED KOREANS
     http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0508160158aug16,1,7497318.story?coll=chi-technology-hed
3.   ROK GRANTS AMNESTY TO MORE THAN 4 MILLION
     http://www.abc.net.au/ra/news/stories/s1436668.htm
4.   DPRK TO GRANT AMNESTY IN SEPTEMBER
     http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm
5.   TWO KOREAS SET UP FIRST CROSS-BORDER MILITARY HOTLINE
     http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2005/08/09/afx2176686.html

FOCUS: Interviews with DPRK and US delegation heads to six-party talks
6.   INTERVIEW WITH KIM KYE GWAN
     http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/08/14/gwan.transcript/
7.   INTERVIEW WITH CHRISTOPHER HILL
     http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/july-dec05/hill_8-09.html
*************************************************

1.   DPRK DELEGATION ENDS WATERSHED VISIT TO ROK
     by Seo Dong-shin, The Korea Times, 17 August 2005

Leaving lots to say about their changed attitudes, the North Korean 
delegates returned home Wednesday after a four-day visit to Seoul to mark 
the Aug. 15 Liberation Day celebrations. Experts say their unprecedented 
moves are a watershed moment for the future relations of the two Koreas. 
Opinions, however, differ about whether the Northern delegates' series of 
"taboo-busting" was a giant step in the reunification process or part of 
covert psychological tactics to penetrate the minds of the South Korean 
public.

North Korean delegates made four unusual gestures: a tribute at the National 
Cemetery, a courtesy call to the National Assembly, and visits to former 
President Kim Dae-jung and President Roh Moo-hyun.

"They may just be following the orders of Kim Jong-il, chairman of the 
North's Defence Committee, but the visit to the National Cemetery, is very 
symbolic, and I think the North is sending two big messages," commented Paik 
Hak-soon, director of North Korean Studies at the Sejong Institute.

According to Paik, the North has signalled its commitment to clearing away 
mutual animosity and settling the peninsula's fratricidal past to open an 
era of new inter-Korean cooperation on the occasion of the 60th anniversary 
of national liberation. Secondly, the unprecedented gestures also aimed at 
serving the North's political scheme to speed up the process of concluding a 
peace treaty and normalizing ties with the United States by greatly 
improving South-North relations, Paik said. North Korea has been pushing for 
a peace treaty to replace the armistice treaty signed at the end of the 
Korean War (1950-1953) in a bid to bring the technical ceasefire to rest.

But there are doubts over the North's true motives, aggravating the 
deepening ideological rift in the South.

"The 60th anniversary of Liberation Day reminds us of the chaos right after 
liberation," said Jun Yu-ok, spokeswoman of the conservative Grand National 
Party (GNP), referring to friction between conservative and progressive 
groups in the South concerning North Korea during the three-day 
celebrations.

Suh Jae-jean, senior researcher at the Korea Institute for National 
Unification, gave the profiles of two top North Korean delegates -- Kim 
Ki-nam, secretary of the North's Workers' Party, and Lim Dong-ok, vice 
chairman of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the 
Fatherland -- to the joint celebrations in Seoul.

"Kim is in charge of the North's propaganda toward the South, and Lim is 
like a top intelligence chief in the North," Suh said in a phone interview. 
"The fact that they came here shows the North's strategy of penetrating into 
two levels of the South at the same time -- government and civic."

The North's intention to "shake up" the minds of top Seoul government 
officials and the public by staging these gestures of reconciliation might 
have succeeded, Suh said. But it is the South that will gain the most 
eventually, according to the researcher.

"There might be some confusion and arguments in the South on the sudden 
change in the North Korean delegates' attitude, but that kind of trouble is 
inevitable and even worthwhile if it can also trigger changes in the North's 
attitude," Suh said. "While progressive groups in the South who sympathize 
with the North do not really threaten the basic structure of society here, 
North Korean officials who have experienced the South and changed their 
attitudes can shake up North Korean society."
*************************************************

2.   VIDEO LINK REUNITES LONG-DIVIDED KOREANS
     by Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times, Seoul, 16 August 2005

There was no hugging, no kissing, no chance physically to release the 
longings built up after a half-century of separation by one of the world's 
most impenetrable borders. But for the Koreans who at least had the chance 
to glimpse one another over large-screen television monitors, a pilot 
teleconferencing project that began Monday was the next best thing.

"This in itself is a miracle," said Im Ok Nam, a 58-year-old South Korean, 
as she emerged jubilantly from a conference room at the Red Cross 
headquarters in Seoul where she participated in a teleconference with her 
72-year-old brother in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital. She had not seen 
him since the 1950-53 Korean War.

Fibre-optic cables were laid across the demilitarized zone so that 
teleconferences could take place in real time. The participants in the 
project, 226 people representing 40 families, gathered in conference rooms 
set up in the two nations. The North Koreans spoke from a Pyongyang hotel, 
while South Koreans used 11 rooms in Seoul, Pusan, Suwon, Taejon, Inchon, 
Taegu and Kwangju.

The teleconferences were broadcast live over South Korean television, which 
used split screens to show the reunions. The result was a televised 
kaleidoscope of emotions almost too powerful to watch.

The North Korean women mostly wore traditional robes known as hanbuk, while 
many of the men wore their military uniforms, their chests adorned with war 
medals. Many clutched tiny photographs of other family members that they 
held up to the cameras. (...)

Since 2000, there have been 10 face-to-face family reunions, allowing about 
10,000 estranged Koreans to meet. But the waiting list in South Korea alone 
of people who wish to participate numbers 98,000, and thousands of potential 
participants die each year of old age. (...)

The South Koreans are hoping that the next round of in-person reunions will 
take place Aug. 26 at the North Korean resort of Mt. Kumgang after a hiatus 
of more than one year. The gatherings were stopped by North Korea amid 
worsening relations with South Korea and rising tensions over the North's 
pursuit of nuclear weapons.
*************************************************

3.   ROK GRANTS AMNESTY TO MORE THAN 4 MILLION
     ABC Radio Australia, 12 August 2005

South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun has pardoned more than 4 million people 
in an amnesty marking an end to Japanese colonial rule 60 years ago. The 
amnesty includes about 4.2 million people who have had their drivers' 
licenses revoked for traffic violations or have been convicted of minor 
crimes and misdemeanours. The justice ministry says it will also release 
2,122 people from prison, including scores of politicians and former 
government officials convicted of corruption and election law violations. 
The amnesty also affects 1,900 people convicted of violating South Korea's 
security laws, which ban pro-communist activities and unauthorised contacts 
with North Korea. It is the biggest amnesty since 2002, when former 
president, Kim Dae-Jung, pardoned 4.8 million people to celebrate Korea's 
independence from Japan in 1945.
*************************************************

4.   DPRK TO GRANT AMNESTY IN SEPTEMBER
     Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Pyongyang, 12 August 2005

A decree of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly of the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea was promulgated to grant amnesty on the occasion 
of the 60th anniversaries of the Workers' Party of Korea and the liberation 
of Korea. The decree dated August 11 says:

Today the army and the people of the DPRK will celebrate with splendor the 
60th anniversaries of the WPK and Korea's liberation on the road of the 
fruitful drive to glorify the era of the Songun revolution under the wise 
leadership of Kim Jong Il. The two anniversaries will mark the noteworthy 
political events as they will glorify the undying feats performed President 
Kim Il Sung and the WPK in building the Party and carrying out the 
revolutionary cause of Juche and the human cause of independence and 
powerfully demonstrate the might of the single-minded unity of the Party, 
the army and the people rallied close around the headquarters of the 
revolution and the spirit of Songun Korea. The Presidium of the SPA of the 
DPRK decides as follows in order to glorify the two anniversaries as grand 
political festivals and implement to the letter the benevolent politics, the 
all-embracing politics of the Party, true to the lifetime intention and 
cause of Kim Il Sung:

1. Amnesty shall be granted on the occasion of the 60th anniversaries of the 
WPK and the liberation of Korea. Amnesty shall be proclaimed from September 
1, Juche 94 (2005).
2. The Cabinet and relevant institutions shall take measures to ensure that 
those who are to be set free on pardon settle down in their work.
*************************************************

5.   TWO KOREAS SET UP FIRST CROSS-BORDER MILITARY HOTLINE
     AFX News, Forbes.com, Seoul, 10 August 2005

South and North Korea have set up a cross-border military hotline and 
conducted a trial run in an effort to avoid accidental clashes between the 
two sides, officials said. The two sides, which have maintained a truce 
since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, agreed last month to run the 
hotline between communication liaison offices on either side of the western 
border.

"It is the first direct communications linkage between the military 
authorities of the two Koreas," a South Korean defence ministry official 
said after a test run on the telephone and fax line.
*************************************************

FOCUS: Interviews with DPRK and US delegation heads to six-party talks

*************************************************

6.   INTERVIEW WITH KIM KYE GWAN
     CNN transcript, Pyongyang, DPRK, 14 August 2005

[CNN Introduction: Kim Kye Gwan, chief nuclear negotiator for North Korea 
and the nation's vice foreign minister was interviewed by CNN Senior Asia 
Correspondent Mike Chinoy on Saturday in Pyongyang. Below is a transcript of 
the exclusive interview, as translated to Mike Chinoy.]

KIM KYE GWAN: The denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is the legacy of 
our President Kim Il Sung and it is the firm conviction of our supreme 
leadership. According to this we have been maintaining our principal 
position to resolve the nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations, and 
that is why we have attended the fourth round of six-party talks, which 
started on July 26th until August 7th. We have been very sincere and have 
adopted a very business-like approach. The denuclearization of the Korean 
Peninsula does not mean that this should be done by the DPRK side only but 
this should be a job to be done by the United States as well as South Korea. 
And at this round we have made a strategic decision to denuclearize the 
Korean Peninsula. However, we find that South Korea and the United States 
are not yet ready and prepared for that. At this point it is very important 
that we preserve and exercise the right to have nuclear energy activities, 
and this has been our consistent position. But this time the United States 
has rejected our legitimate rights to get engaged in peaceful nuclear 
activities. This is a reflection of the United States policy on this. That's 
why we cannot cover with any language these differences and in our political 
views, and we have actually reassessed and we are now having a recess. After 
we broke into recess I am following very closely the US position as far as 
the US policy on this.

MIKE CHINOY: You said that as a sovereign nation you are entitled to a 
peaceful civilian nuclear energy program. Is that just principle or are you 
insisting that North Korea, the DPRK, will actually establish, set up and 
operate nuclear power plants in the future?

KIM: It is the principal position of the DPRK to have a right to use the 
civilian peaceful energy uses. This is actually a kind of nuclear 
sovereignty, which means it belongs to a sovereign right to a nation. This 
is why we cannot make a kind of concession on this point. In light of the 
economic policy of our country we would like to pursue nuclear energy 
activities. We have great potential here, and in light of the situation and 
resources of our country we would like to pursue the peaceful nuclear energy 
generation. And this is quite an urgent issue that faces our nation and this 
is again very appropriate policy in the light of the economic situation of 
our country. That is why we cannot make a kind of concession in this field.

CHINOY: Do you have any intention of coming back into the nuclear 
non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and adhering to its regulations, especially 
those that would allow rigorous international inspection of your nuclear 
facilities?

KIM: As we resolve the nuclear issue we are willing to return to the NPT and 
fully abide by IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards.

CHINOY: At the six-party talks you pledged that North Korea was committed to 
giving up its nuclear program. Does that include your uranium program as 
well as your plutonium program?

KIM: When we talk about a nuclear weapons program we are talking about a 
plutonium-based program. We don't have a uranium-based nuclear weapons 
program, but in the future time if there is any kind of evidence that needs 
to be clarified by our side we will be fully prepared to do so.

CHINOY: So you're still denying any uranium-based nuclear weapons program 
but not ruling out future discussions on the issue if the circumstances are 
appropriate?

KIM: I mean that our partner for negotiations has a suspicion of our 
activities, and if that party is prepared to present us with credible 
information or evidence, then my side will be prepared to clarify that. I 
think it's a kind of moral obligation that we should show to our partners 
for negotiations.

CHINOY: The Bush administration has said pretty bluntly that it doesn't 
trust you, and one of the reasons they say is that they describe the North 
Korean system as one where the people are denied human rights and where the 
government cheats on its international commitments. What is your response?

KIM: This is actually a kind of theory that contradicts so much the kind of 
statement by the Bush administration that it does respect the sovereign 
rights of our nation and recognizes our sovereignty. And as for us, our 
social system is something that has been chosen by our own people and our 
people take and regard this system as their own life. Talking about human 
rights and so on and so forth is a kind of temptation to try to damage the 
image of our social system and try to bring down our social system. I think 
what is lacking is a kind of respect from the Bush administration to the 
option or the choice made by our people for the social system that we have 
now.

CHINOY: I have heard some officials here in Pyongyang say privately that 
they suspect the real goal of the Bush administration is not 
denuclearization but in fact regime change. Do you share that view?

KIM: I think we have just now started our negotiations with the United 
States and I think I should need more time to judge as to the real purpose. 
However, I don't doubt that they have that kind of intent. However, I do 
think I should closely follow the Bush administration because it has now 
pledged to resolve the nuclear issue on the basis of respect of our 
sovereign rights. What I am so confident of is if the Bush administration is 
seeking a kind of so-called regime change then they will end up in failure.

CHINOY: Iran is now having some problems with the IAEA, with the European 
Union, and the USA over its nuclear program. Are you in touch with the 
Iranians? Do you compare notes? Have you shared experiences about your 
nuclear programs and their nuclear problems and the way you are being dealt 
with by the United States and other Western countries?

KIM: We don't have any relations with Iran in this area, and I think the 
nuclear issue of Iran is something that should be dealt with by the Iranian 
people, and we have no relations with Iran on this. However, the lesson we 
have learned from the Iranian case is that maybe the IAEA has a kind of 
change in policy to allow some of the nations to exercise this right of 
access to the peaceful nuclear energy activities outside the 
non-proliferation treaty. That is why I should say that the denial of our 
right to peaceful nuclear activity even before returning to the NPT does not 
conform to the cases that are now practiced in the international forum. Some 
people are talking about a kind of concern with regards to our possible 
peaceful nuclear activities by quoting the so-called "past practices" of our 
country. However, as for this so-called "past practices" of my nation, that 
is something that happened after the breakdown of the Agreed Framework. And 
we had been very transparent in our process to go into our nuclear 
activities and we have been very just and transparent at every stage of 
turning plutonium into a weapon. With regard to our possible nuclear 
activities, which could lead up to the manufacture of nuclear weapons out of 
operation of light water reactors, then we can leave the operation under the 
strict supervision or the operation itself to some other nations that they 
trust. In that operation the United States itself can have a direct 
participation or can pick any nation they trust.

CHINOY: You said that the United States needs to end its hostile policy to 
make progress. Given the political realities in the United States, which I'm 
sure you understand, what specific, concrete steps do you realistically want 
the Bush administration to take in the future?

KIM: I'm not going to get too specific here because I am quite confident 
that the people in the Bush administration are fully aware of what we need.

CHINOY: You held a bilateral meeting with the Japanese delegate to the 
six-party talks. How do things stand on the abduction issue and what are 
prospects for the normalization of relations with Japan?

KIM: I believe that the abduction issue has been given a full settlement, 
and talking about this abduction issue is now something that I should 
describe as a kind of scheme to apply a kind of break to the development or 
normalization of the DPRK in Japan relations.
*************************************************

7.   INTERVIEW WITH CHRISTOPHER HILL
     PBS transcript, "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer", 9 August 2005

[PBS NEWSMAKER Introduction: Six-nation talks aimed at ending North Korea's 
nuclear weapons program stalled recently with an agreement to return to 
negotiations in late August. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, 
chief US envoy to North Korea and the lead US negotiator, discusses the 
talks.]

MARGARET WARNER: Just back from two weeks of negotiations in Beijing over 
ending North Korea's nuclear program is Assistant Secretary of State 
Christopher Hill. He was US point man in the six-nation talks, and also held 
numerous private sessions with his North Korean counterpart. It's the first 
time the Bush administration has engaged in such intense bilateral talks 
with Pyongyang. But the negotiations were suspended for three weeks on 
Saturday with no agreement. Ambassador Hill joins us now. And welcome, Mr. 
Ambassador. I should explain I call you Ambassador Hill because you've been 
ambassador to several countries as well.

CHRISTOPHER HILL: Whichever.

WARNER: Now, your North Korean counterpart, as Jim [Lehrer] reported 
earlier, actually had some -- despite the deadlock -- had some positive 
things to say about these talks today. And one of the things he said was 
that they had established a groundwork for future discussions. Is that your 
view?

HILL: Well, we went through a lot of issues. As you know, they stayed out of 
the talks for some 13 months. So we had 13 days to go over a number of 
issues. And I'd say we covered some of the main issues: What they need to do 
in terms of getting rid of their weapons, their nuclear programs, and what 
we can do as to the form of compensation, including energy and economic 
assistance.

WARNER: So what did - I mean, the South Korean foreign minister said today 
he thought the US and North Korea had narrowed their differences. Do you 
agree with that?

HILL: Well, you know, it's hard to say because nothing is agreed unless 
everything is agreed. So indeed, there were moments when it looked like we 
really had, and there were some other moments where it looked like we 
hadn't. So we'll know when we get an agreement, then we can look back and 
see how well we did.

WARNER: What did North Korea bring to the table or offer that they hadn't 
before?

HILL: Well, it's pretty clear that they are prepared to do away with these 
weapon systems and it's pretty clear they're willing to do away with the 
systems related to the weapons systems. So that was encouraging. But, you 
know, to be sure we still have some differences with them.

WARNER: Did the US, -- The report suggested the US also indicated some 
flexibility on this so-called sequencing issue: who does what, when, when 
does the US reciprocate if North Korea does some of the things they're 
saying. Was the US able to go part way to meet North Korea's concerns on 
that?

HILL: Well, to be sure, we're looking at how we can sort of speed up the 
time lines, how we can get them to denuclearize as soon as possible. So we 
had some discussion, but I must say we don't have any final agreement on 
sequencing. That will probably come at the next stage. This stage was simply 
to look at principles, and then the next stage would be to see how you put 
those principles together in an agreement.

WARNER: But you were convinced that the North Koreans are really ready to 
give all this up?

HILL: Well, again, I'll know better when we have an agreement, certainly, 
this is a thirteen-day negotiation, the first five days a lot of discussion, 
the next five days looking at texts. In those five days when we're looking 
at text there were some encouraging signs. The last couple of days it turned 
the other way. And so we'll have to see. What is encouraging is that they've 
agreed to come back on the week of Aug. 29.

WARNER: All right. So now let's talk about the deadlock. The talks 
stalemated over what?

HILL: Well, essentially toward the end it was very clear that North Korea 
wants to maintain a civilian nuclear energy program. And in addition to 
that, they also want to have some light water reactors built for them. These 
are reactors that are a little more difficult to make bombs out of, but by 
no means impossible to make bombs out of. And, in fact, these were reactors 
that were talked about in the 1990s and another agreement at the time.

WARNER: And the US Is unwilling to accept this, why?

HILL: Well, I don't want you to bi-lateralize this, because none of the 
other participants at the talks were willing to give the North Koreans light 
water reactors. The South Koreans who had been willing to do that now are 
talking about providing conventional power. And no one else is really 
talking about providing light water reactors, so this was North Korea 
against the others.

WARNER: All right, I accept that the others agree with the US on this. But 
again explain why, explain particularly, and the president was asked this 
today, why is the US, which also faces something of an impasse with Iran, 
willing to accept that Iran could have peaceful civilian nuclear power, but 
not North Korea?

HILL: Well, I think have you to remember how we got here. I mean, the North 
Koreans had a research reactor in a place in a place called Yongbyon; it was 
a graphite-moderated reactor, and what happened was one day they withdrew 
from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they withdrew from the safeguards that 
accompanied that, they kicked out the inspectors and within two months, just 
two months, they had turned this so-called research reactor into a bomb 
making machine. So obviously -- and proud of it, by the way. So obviously we 
do have some concerns about letting them go back to research reactors or 
other things.

WARNER: So are you essentially saying because the world cannot trust the 
North Korea to keep its word if it had any nuclear capability at all?

HILL: Well, that's a pretty direct statement, and in my line of work, let me 
just point out we have some remaining differences on this issue, to be sure.

WARNER: But now if the two alternatives, and you probably won't accept that 
these are the two alternatives, but let me posit them anyway.

HILL: There are at least two, I'm sure.

WARNER: If one alternative is that North Korea gives up all its weapons, all 
its weapons grade programs, everything, and wants a civilian reactor with 
very intrusive inspections, or it continues to, it says build bombs and do 
everything else outside the NPT, are you saying there's no give in the US 
position on the civilian reactor side?

HILL: Well, one issue is when we talk about getting rid of only military 
programs or weapons programs, then you'll get into the question of whether, 
you know, some program and some place is weapons-related or not, and you'll 
start getting into an argument of whether it's related or not. So we'd like 
a clean slate. And I must say the other partners in this process agree to 
that. And, in fact, the draft, the Chinese draft on the subject of, which 
was a draft to try to create the whole agreement, made very clear that North 
Korea needs to get out of the nuclear business, then get back into the NPT.

WARNER: All right. Now, you've broken for three weeks; they've said they'll 
come back; the US is obviously coming back, and the other parties. What 
difference do you think three weeks will make, if what you're trying to do 
is get North Korea to move?

HILL: Well, I must say two weeks was a long enough period for me in Beijing, 
so three weeks would be a lot longer, but, you know, it's an opportunity for 
the North Korean negotiators to go back to Pyongyang to discuss this with 
actually their leader, with Mr. Kim Jong-Il, but also the rest of their 
government. They need to look at what's on the table, and in fact what's on 
the table is a pretty good set of things for North Korea. This is a country 
that really needs some help, really needs some help in terms of its economy. 
And I can assure you making weapons is not part of that.

WARNER: But, I mean, are you counting on the Chinese to help bring them 
around? What else --

HILL: Well, I think we all agree, in fact I had a lot of good conversations 
with the Chinese, we all agreed that this is time for North Korea to settle 
and get out of this business. So certainly we hope the Chinese can do 
something. The Chinese have a very strong relationship with North Korea, a 
very strong economic relationship, political relationship. In fact, there 
are a lot personal relationships that go between China and North Korea. So 
we do look to China. But I think we all have a responsibility to do 
everything we can do to get an agreement.

WARNER: Late today you were quoted on the wires as having told reporters 
that you were willing to meet with the North Koreans again privately before 
the talks. Have the North Koreans indicated an interest in that; is that in 
the works?

HILL: Well, actually, we haven't had any discussions on that. I just got 
back from Beijing and I'm still bleary-eyed today. But the first thing I 
want to do is work with our allies, Japan and South Korea, to make sure we 
have a really common position. We need to discuss where to go next, and as 
for meeting with the North Koreans, we don't have any plans to do that right 
now.

WARNER: Well, tell us now about the meetings, and both the big ones and the 
bilateral ones. What was it like negotiating with them?

HILL: Well, first of all, I heard they would be very bombastic, that there 
would be tempers; I didn't see any of that. It was pretty business-like, 
pretty calm and businesslike, and a lot of the times we spend just reviewing 
each other's position. You know, we hadn't met in a while; it's been 13 
months since there were any six-party discussions, so it was a real 
opportunity to go over where our differences are.

WARNER: What was different about the private talks versus the big group 
talks? I mean, where did you meet; was the atmosphere more informal?

HILL: Well, with the North Koreans we tended to meet with their entire 
delegation; usually they didn't like to break into a smaller group than 
that. With the other delegations we would often have one-on-ones, whereas 
with the North it was pretty large. They tended to be rather formal, with 
interpreters and the works, so it wasn't a lot of sort of side bar give and 
take there.

WARNER: So what do you think you learned in the private talks that you 
otherwise wouldn't have known or understood?

HILL: Well, certainly in dealing with them directly as we did, I found it 
very useful to deal directly. Rather than deal with their lawyer, you're 
dealing with them directly and you kind of understand their insights. And 
you get a little better sense of what's really important to them. Now, I 
have to be careful of that because we could come back in three weeks and I 
could find that, you know, they absolutely positively have to have some 
element that I didn't anticipate this time around. But I feel I had a little 
sense of what's important to them. And from that I draw a little optimism 
because I think we can work something out if I'm right about that.

WARNER: So where are you on the scale of very optimistic to very 
pessimistic?

HILL: Oh, I don't want to say that in a game that I'm playing in right now, 
I don't want to make a bet on that. But we have to see. We have to see. I 
mean, it was encouraging that they agreed to this date, that is Aug. 29. We 
had all six parties sit down and we all discussed that. They agreed to come 
back; that's encouraging. But as to whether they're, you know, whether 
they're really dragging themselves over the line and agreeing to do all 
that, we have to see.

WARNER: And how long is the United States interested in, willing to continue 
these talks, versus when the US would say this is going nowhere; we're going 
to try to take this to the Security Council?

HILL: Well, I mean, President Bush has made very clear on many occasions 
that we consider the six-party talks the best way to solve this. I mean, 
this is not a bilateral issue with the US. Every country there needs to be 
involved. So we think it's the best, and as long as we're making progress, I 
would say we made some progress in Beijing, we'll stick with it.

WARNER: So you're not saying that the next round, the Aug. 29 round is make 
or break?

HILL: I don't like to use terms like that.

WARNER: All right. Ambassador Hill, thank you very much.

HILL: Thank you.
*************************************************

End CanKor # 216

*************************************************
CanKor is an electronic information service for readers interested in the 
issues of peace and security on the Korean peninsula, published by 
Weingartner Consulting. Financial support is received from the Canadian 
International Development Agency (CIDA). Views expressed on the CanKor 
website or weekly digest are those of the respective authors, and do not 
necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of CanKor, CIDA or 
Weingartner Consulting. CanKor accepts no liability for inaccuracies, errors 
or omissions.  Copyright of all items listed or reprinted rests with the 
original publishers.  CanKor provides links to originals when available. To 
subscribe or unsubscribe, and for all other communication, please address 
the CanKor editorial team by e-mail at editor at CanKor.ca. Editor: Erich 
Weingartner; Managing Editor: Miranda Weingartner; Research: Marion Current, 
Ilene Solomon, Danielle Goldfinger; Web developer: David Seguin. Please 
visit our website at: www.CanKor.ca
*************************************************