MODERATOR: So good afternoon, everyone.
We're very pleased to welcome Susan Thornton, who is the Acting Assistant Secretary of State
for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, back to the New York Foreign Press Center.
I have a few housekeeping items before we start.
Please take a moment to silence your cell phones.
At the conclusion of Ms. Thornton's remarks, we'll open the floor to questions.
When you receive the microphone, please state your name and your media affiliation.
Today's briefing is on the record.
And with that, let me turn the podium over to Ms. Thornton.
Thank you again.
MS THORNTON: Good afternoon, everyone.
Great to be here in New York this week.
We're nearing the end of a very busy UNGA week, and we've had a lot of engagements,
of course.
During the time that we've been here, we've had the President here for an unprecedented
level of activity and engagement at the UN; a number of UN events – multilateral, bilateral
events; and the Secretary of State is, of course, here, continuing with his program
this afternoon, continuing with meetings.
Of course, we've had a lot of interactions with our counterparts in the Asia Pacific
region while we've been here this week at various levels, and we've had many chances
to discuss the priority issues and regional security challenges and other challenges that
we share.
Of course, our highest priority issue this week has been the issue of the DPRK and their
illegal missile and nuclear programs.
We've had a number of discussions regarding this issue with a lot of different counterparts
and in various formats.
We had, of course, yesterday's announcement by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin of the new executive
order that the President had signed regarding new authorities for the Treasury Department
to pursue illicit financial transactions by sanctioning entities and financial institutions
that engage in transactions with North Korea's illicit weapons programs and other trading
operations.
And at the same time, we have been making clear this week that the United States does
seek a peaceful resolution to the DPRK nuclear and missile issue.
The DPRK's rhetoric and illegal missile launches and nuclear tests will not make that
country more secure.
Of course, the opposite is true.
The DPRK's actions will also prevent the country from developing its economy and improving
the lives of its people.
The international community will never accept the DPRK as a nuclear-armed state, which is
Pyongyang's stated goal.
And unfortunately, despite our efforts to reach a point where the DPRK would engage
in serious negotiations, their belligerent and provocative behavior has demonstrated
that they're not interested, at least at this point, in working toward a peaceful solution.
I think the DPRK has a choice: It needs to give up its nuclear weapons and join the community
of nations, or the regime will continue to condemn its people to poverty and isolation.
So that is my opening statement, and I'd be happy to take some questions from anyone.
QUESTION: Thank you.
I'm Yuji Maruyama, correspondent from Kyodo News.
I have a question about DPRK.
South Korea Government announced humanitarian aid to North Korea on this week.
So can you support this idea and decision?
So the decisions has not yet, but there is many concern about the DPRK.
MS THORNTON: So we have been working on this issue of DPRK illegal nuclear and missile
programs for many, many decades.
During that time, there has been underway an effort by the international community to
make sure that the belligerent and illicit behavior by the regime in Pyongyang does not
unduly punish or affect the people of North Korea.
And so there are number of UN agencies that continue to work in North Korea, continue
to make very concerted efforts to get – make sure that we can get needed humanitarian assistance
directly to the North Korean people.
And we've made strenuous efforts over the years to make sure that we can monitor that
aid, to make sure that it is going directly into the hands of the people that need it.
So I'm not sure exactly what the details are of the discussions that have occurred
on this issue between the South Koreans and other agencies, but I know that a number of
countries continue to respond to appeals from the different UN agencies to put – make
sure that we can mitigate the effects of the illegal programs of the government on the
common people.
QUESTION: Ritula Shah, BBC News.
Kim Jong-un of North Korea has responded to this week's speech from the President and
the tightening of sanctions by saying that North Korea will take the "highest level
of hardline countermeasures in history."
Does this suggest to you that the U.S. strategy is working?
And a second question, if I may.
President Trump said on Tuesday that – that he – described Mr. Kim as "Rocket Man
is on a suicide mission."
What's meant by this?
That the U.S. will destroy North Korea?
MS THORNTON: Okay, to take the second question maybe first, I think what the President said
was that the North Koreans appear to be on a mission to attack or to engage in some kind
of provocation or military sort of display aimed at the United States and/or our allies,
and that if that was to be the case that the U.S. would be prepared to respond and to respond
overwhelmingly in order to protect our interests.
So I think it's important to realize that there was a statement about a response to
an attack from North Korea or a provocation from North Korea that was – was at issue
there.
The North Koreans have responded in a way misquoting what was said and with their own
sort of belligerent rhetoric.
And I think – I don't know whether the rhetoric means that the – that the strategy
that we have is working, but certainly we see the North Koreans be continually, increasingly
isolated and that they are feeling that isolation.
They are seeing the effect of the sanctions that the international community has put in
place – two unanimously approved UN Security Council resolutions, an overwhelmingly large
portion of their export trade be put under effective block by the UN Security Council
and their export destination partners, and I think they are certainly feeling a lot of
pressure.
And I can't read the mind of Kim Jong-un so I'm not sure whether it's in direct
response to what we're doing, but I think it's reasonable to assess that it is in
response to the pressure they're feeling and the pretty unanimous condemnation from
the international community that they're facing.
QUESTION: Alicia Rose with NHK.
So you said that you don't know whether the rhetoric of Kim Jong-un's statement
means that the strategy is working.
Can you clarify that a bit?
And then also, specifically on the threat of North Korea to detonate a hydrogen bomb
in the Pacific Ocean, how is the U.S. prepared to respond?
MS THORNTON: Well, what I meant by I can't tell whether Kim Jong-un's statement means
– it's hard.
I can't psychoanalyze Kim Jong-un so I can't get inside his mind to know what the intention
was behind their statement.
All we can see is what the statement says.
So I assess that the statement and the other signs that we're seeing of North Korea feeling
the pressure means that the strategy of increasing pressure on the regime is having an effect
on them.
What we want to do, remember, and the strategy is, to increase the pressure, increase diplomatic
isolation, increase our deterrence – our military deterrence, in order to get the regime
in Pyongyang to engage meaningfully in a discussion of denuclearization, which is the goal of
the international community in this engagement and in this strategy.
So I think we see these responses in North Korea, we see them feeling the pressure.
We haven't yet seen them give a signal that they are ready to engage in meaningful negotiations
on denuclearization and rolling back their provocative behavior and their illicit programs.
On the question about the – I think it was the – what did you call it?
The hydrogen bomb.
Yeah, I think – I mean, obviously, such an action would be an unprecedented act of
aggression by North Korea and would demand an international response.
QUESTION: And how is the U.S. prepared to respond?
Oh, sorry.
And specifically, how is the U.S. prepared to respond?
MS THORNTON: Well, I don't want to go into speculation on sort of the hypothetical response,
but I think the entire international community, and not just the U.S. – I mean, this would
be an unprecedented act and would be real outrageous behavior on their part.
So I don't want to speculate.
I certainly hope that they would not engage in that behavior, but I'm sure there will
be a very concerted and determined international response to such an act.
MODERATOR: Let's go to the front row with Ahmed.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
My name is Ahmed Fathi from ATN News on behalf of multiple international media outlets.
I'll be asking the following couple of questions if you allow me: First, as you said, the belligerent
and illicit behavior of Kim Jong-un is causing him isolation, he continuing on a path to
acquire nuclear weapons if he have not acquired it yet.
What is the measures that can curb this ongoing process?
He did not budge for a minute on it and he's going and doing one provocation after the
other.
The second part is that when he conducted the long-range missile – ballistic missile
testing, he violated the territorial water of Japan as well as their airspace.
What's the – why the U.S. military present in Japan and the Japanese military, whom they
have the hardware to counter that, why did not shoot the missile down while it was in
their territory?
Thank you.
MS THORNTON: So – well, the first question is a very difficult question.
We've been wrestling with the problem of this illegal nuclear program in North Korea
for quite some time.
I myself worked on this problem back in the '90s and was involved in it in the 2000s
the last two times we had negotiations on this program.
And unfortunately, we have not been able to get the North Koreans to abide by any of the
agreements that they have signed up to in the past, and we have not been able to get
this program eliminated in the way that we have been seeking.
You asked what can change the course of this program, what can stop him, how can we keep
him from doing this.
I mean, that is exactly what the strategy that we've devised together with all of
our international partners is aimed at: bringing unprecedented kind of pressure on the regime.
We – I mean, Kim Jong-un's purpose in trying to achieve this nuclear weapon is obviously
to fulfill a longtime desire on the part of the North Korean regime to reunify the Korean
Peninsula under the Kim family regime, and to proliferate these weapons, blackmail other
countries, and this is some – an intolerable prospect that – and no country in the international
community can abide.
And that is why it's absolutely imperative that we make sure that we can succeed in getting
him to the table to negotiate a way forward for both his country, his people, the security
of his regime, which is not being enhanced by this weapons program.
It will lead to certain insecurity for the country and for his regime and certainly will
not lead to any positive future prospects for the people of North Korea.
So I think this pressure – we have unprecedented ratcheting up of sanctions in the last couple
of months.
We're working to implement the sanctions regime.
We had UN Security Council 2371 Resolution, which involved banning things like seafood
and other exports from North Korea.
We barely had time to start implementing that one when we had the nuclear test.
Then we had, in record succession, UN Security Council Resolution 2375.
Both of these resolutions unanimously passed by the UN Security Council, the second one
within a week's time of beginning negotiations.
It's an unprecedented kind of coming together of the international community, blocking off
a number of additional export sectors for North Korea.
So we are in the process now of working with everyone to really implement these sanctions.
The Treasury executive order this week was another step to try to help on the implementation
and making sure there are no loopholes in the sanctions.
And this sanctions net will start to tighten and be very, very difficult for the North
Korean regime, and that is the idea.
So will it work?
I certainly believe that it will work, and I think it's our last best chance frankly
to solve this issue peacefully.
And so that is what we're pursuing.
On the second issue of the provocations that the North Koreans have unleashed and why are
people not responding in kind, I mean, I think this goes to another point that's well worth
making in case people have forgotten the history of the North Korean regime.
I mean, there is just a litany over the last decades of provocations, heinous acts, hijacking
of airplanes, blowing up of part of the South Korean cabinet in Myanmar, kidnappings, kidnapping
of a South Korean movie producer taken to North Korea to make movies, et cetera.
There is just a long list of incredibly unspeakable acts that have been committed – sinking
of a South Korean naval vessel, attacks on an island – and these things have not been
responded to in kind by the international community because our focus is on defense
of our allies, defense of the peace and security in the region, and we have shown a lot of
restraint with regard to the regime in North Korea over the years.
And I think it's quite clear that that kind of restraint and that kind of patience is
nearing the end, and we see ever more provocative kinds of behavior coming, and we – it's
just not going to be tolerated.
QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up, please, a quick follow-up?
MS THORNTON: Sure.
QUESTION: Within international law, I spoke specifically about violating airspace, violating
territorial waters.
U.S. have a longstanding defense treaty with Japan and South Korea.
Why the U.S. military did not respond?
Why the Japanese Navy, when they have the Aegis system also which could have shot this
missile down, did not respond?
Is that restraint – accept the violation?
U.S., if it responded, or Japan, it will be in full compliance with international law.
That was my point.
Thank you.
MS THORNTON: Yeah.
So I understand what you're asking.
I mean, the issues of international law, there have been numerous of these illegal ballistic
missile launches, some of which have landed in the EEZs of other countries, particularly
Japan, and there are warnings that have gone out now in Japan that have been automatically
tripped by the overflight of two missiles of the northern Japanese islands.
So there are automatic civil – sort of civil warnings that go out.
And I think these are complicated matters.
It's probably better if someone in the military would speak to it, but I think that it's
easy to tell whether something is a test or not and approximately where it's going to
land.
And so I think that's probably related to your question about what – when you make
a decision about whether or not to take a military action.
It depends a lot on the individual situation.
I do know that, of course, Secretary Mattis has said that if there was a missile that
was launched at – and he was speaking in the context of the threats that were made
by the North Korean regime at that time to the island of Guam in the Pacific, that if
there was a missile that was shot at Guam and was heading in a – on an attack trajectory
to Guam, that we would shoot it down.
So that was his quote.
But again, it's probably better to talk to the people who are in charge of the military
response.
QUESTION: Thank you.
Ken Silverman, Fuji TV, Japan.
You mentioned that the U.S. does seek a peaceful resolution with North Korea, and I believe
a couple days ago President Trump said, when asked if he would have direct talks with Kim
Jong-un, he said, "Why not?"
I guess on the diplomatic side, is there anything – excuse me – that you can discuss in
this forum that's going on that might be progressing in that direction even on a track
two basis?
Thank you.
MS THORNTON: Yeah, thank you.
Well, I said – as I said in my sort of opening statement, we've got – not gotten a lot
of indications from North Korea that they're serious about engaging, and a lot of our sort
of attempts to open up some diplomatic space have been met by additional missile launches
with longer ranges or more dramatic nuclear tests.
So I think I wouldn't want to indicate that there's anything other than that kind of
a situation on the diplomatic front at the moment.
I think we're still hoping and waiting for the North Koreans to respond to some of the
things that have already been stated and been put out there and to the sort of condemnation
of the international community on what they're doing.
I mean, we have stated openly and on the record many, many times that we're not seeking
the overthrow of the regime or the collapse of the country or accelerated reunification,
et cetera, so we've made it very plain what our purpose is.
It's for denuclearization.
That is the focus, and so far we've not gotten any real serious signs of response.
Of course, we had some contact with the North Korean side when we were engaged in the attempts
to negotiate the release of Otto Warmbier, which everyone remembers how that turned out
very tragically, of course, for Otto and his family.
But – so it's not that we don't have a channel open through which we could receive
messages or indications that the North Korean was – were ready to sit down and talk.
That's not the issue.
It's really just the matter of them not signaling in any way that they're inclined
to do so.
MODERATOR: This will be the last question.
QUESTION: Thank you.
Manik Mehta.
I'm syndicated.
On the question of China, is it exercising enough influence on North Korea?
That's number one.
And since this is not working, as we have seen, would you not consider bringing in a
third party just to help you in your negotiations?
And I'm thinking of the ASEAN region.
You recall a few months back there was an incident at Kuala Lumpur Airport and Kim had
his stepbrother assassinated, and that resulted in a major crisis.
And it was very quickly and quietly resolved.
Would something on those lines not be conceivable?
MS THORNTON: Okay, thank you.
So first on the question of China, I think you've heard the President speak to this
in the past and also this week, and I mentioned also the quick action in the UN Security Council,
unanimous action surrounding the recent resolutions.
The Treasury Secretary yesterday talked about our close cooperation with China in trying
to shut down illicit proliferation networks and illicit trade.
I think we have seen that China is doing more and more as time has gone on and as the North
Korean behavior has gotten more provocative, more outrageous, but we still think that the
pressure that China can bring to bear is going to be decisive in our international effort
to increase pressure, and we are in a constant discussion with them about what more can be
done, how to do it, and what kind of cooperation we can promote to make sure that that pressure
is being felt through the China angle on North Korea.
And we think that it's very important for China as a P5 member, a major power in the
region, to step up and take as much responsibility as possible for solving and helping the international
community to solve this problem.
So we will continue to work with them.
We've been working with them on this closely, and we will continue to do so and keep pushing
them to do more.
On the issue of whether or not it's working, I mean, I guess you say it's not working;
I say it has to work and it is working, so we'll see.
The question of mediation, whether from ASEAN or somewhere else, it sort of goes back to
the question about diplomatic channels, whether we have them, et cetera.
I mean – and we've talked to many of the countries in ASEAN this week and in Europe,
et cetera.
It's not really for a lack of channels that this diplomatic engagement isn't moving
forward.
And even in ASEAN, they have all worked very hard to come together to increase the pressure
on North Korea to make clear that even among some of North Korea's more traditional closer
partners, they have closed down diplomatic exchanges, cut down on trade interactions,
cut down on diplomatic missions, because, I mean, they too see that the behavior has
really become intolerable.
So I think it's not really that we need a mediator, it's more that we need North
Korea to come to the table to change – to make a decision to change the path and come
to the table.
And I hope we are getting close to that, but so far we haven't seen any tangible evidence.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much.
We're officially out of time.
Thank you for coming.
Today's briefing was on-the-record and the transcript will be posted on our website as
soon as it's available.
Thank you.
For more infomation >> Kim Jong Un Vows To "Tame Mentally Deranged U.S. Dotard With Fire" - Duration: 2:19. 
For more infomation >> DHS Begins Notifying States About 2016 Russian Hack Attempts | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC - Duration: 3:10. 
For more infomation >> North Korea's Kim Jong Un Calls President Donald Trump 'Mentally Deranged US Dotard' | TODAY - Duration: 3:03. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét