Briefing Upon Arrival at Incheon Airport

Q: [inaudible]

A/S HILL: We all agree this would be worthwhile. So I went to Berlin to give a previously scheduled speech, and I had the opportunity to meet with my counterpart, Mr. Kim Kye-gwan, actually on three occasions over the course of three days. I want to emphasize once again that the negotiations for the denuclearization agreement will take place at the Six-Party Talks, but we've always felt it useful to have discussions between the rounds of the Six-Party Talks. And so when I we talked with Song Min-soon and Chun Young-woo, we agreed that right after the meeting in Berlin that I would come to Seoul and I'd follow up; so that's why I'm here.

Certainly the discussions with the DPRK were, I would say, very useful, and what we now need to do is to see how those discussions can be folded into the Six-Party process and whether those discussions can help lead to some progress in Beijing.

So after spending about, I think I'll be here about 24 hours in Seoul, I'll then go on to Tokyo. And from Tokyo I'll go to Beijing. I'll meet, first of all, I'll meet my counterpart in Tokyo, Mr. Sasae. Indeed I saw him just a week and a half ago in Washington, and we also talked about the idea of meeting with the DPRK. And then I'll go on to Beijing, and I'll talk to Mr. Wu Dawei Sunday night. And what I want to do in talking to Mr. Wu Dawei is to see what the Chinese plan is for reconvening the Six-Party process.

Q: So there was no agreement at all in Berlin?

A/S HILL: Well, look, we had a very useful discussion, and I think the positive tone of the KCNA statement reflects that. Agreements are reached in the Six-Party process, but certainly, the Six-Party process is helped by consultations that we have between the Six-Party process. And I hope that discussions in Berlin, which I did feel were very useful, will contribute to an agreement in the Six-Party process. So actually -- I'm pleased to see that the KCNA, which is not always positive about everything, actually felt that those discussions were also useful and positive.

Q: You said in China that you can'ttalk about the denuclearization issue because of the BDA and, in Berlin, you talked about that issue.

A/S HILL: Look, I don't want to get into what I talked about. First of all, I'm here in Seoul not necessarily to brief the media, but really to brief my counterpart Chun Young-woo and to have the opportunity to meet with Song Min-soon. I wish I could tell you everything, but I think if I told you everything about my discussion in Berlin, it would make my job more difficult. Already there are a lot of difficulties in the Six-Party process so I don't want to make it more difficult than it already is. So you'll excuse me for not telling you everything.

Q: Is there any difference between Beijing and Berlin?

Q: Has anything changed as a result of your meetings in Berlin, substantively?

A/S HILL: Well, I would say again, I want to emphasize that negotiations go on as part of the Six-Party process. So the discussion that we had with the DPRK really needs to be compared more to the discussions we had at the end of November with the DPRK in Beijing. And that's the point of comparison, because they were not negotiations. And I would say that the discussions we had in Berlin were more useful than the discussions we had at the end of November in Beijing. Does that help?

Q: In November?

A/S HILL: When I met with the DPRK between the rounds in November. Well, I meant October 31^st and then November 27^th and 28^th.

Q: Is it true that the Six-Party Talks will convene on the week of February 5^th? That's what we've been told.

A/S HILL: Well, I think that's up to the Chinese as the hosts, and I look forward to hearing from them on when they can organize it. China has a big job. They have many activities going on. So I look forward to hearing from them. But I do want to have the opportunity to consult with the ROK Government on this and then to discuss this matter with the Japanese Government tomorrow, with Mr. Sasae. And then I will get an idea of where they are in the discussions, and perhaps the Chinese will have some thoughts on this.

Q: DoesNorth Korea seem ready to come back to the Six-Party Talks? Are they ready?

A/S HILL: Well, they are participating in the Six-Party Talks, and that's why we talk to them. When they didn't want to come back to the Six-Party Talks, we didn't see the value of talking to them because they were not attending. But, no, they're attending, they attended at the end of December, and they're prepared to come to the next session. Absolutely.

Q: Is it a pretty safe bet that the financial talks will start next week, and that the Six-Parties will happen before Lunar New Year?

A/S HILL: Are you planning ahead to holiday time? I think we do have a tentative date for the financial talks. I think we're working on the actual location of those talks.

Q: The day isMonday?

A/S HILL: I think the day is Monday, I'm not sure of the precise date, and so I would assume that those would go forward.

Q: Do you have information about where the BDA talks will be held?

A/S HILL: I think that there are a couple of ideas, and I need to get back to Washington and talk to our team. And we'll be in touch through the New York channel to set up the precise place.

Q: Are the Six-Parties a pretty safe bet in February, just to get back to that?

A/S HILL: I would think that - again it's up to the Chinese - but I would think that we'll have the Six-Party meeting pretty soon. I can't predict to you precisely what day it is, but I would say that it's pretty soon. When is Lunar New Year?

Q: The 17^th.

A/S HILL: Well, I would hope that it would be before then.

Q: And you said in Berlin you talked about the BDA problem with Kim Gye-gwan. Why did you do that?

A/S HILL: First of all, I don't want to tell you everything that we talked about together, except to say my job is not BDA; my job is dealing with the six parties and denuclearization. We talked about the six parties. We talked about the September statement. We talked about how best to implement the September statement. But we have a mechanism for dealing with BDA, for having in-depth discussions. We did that at the end of December in Beijing, and it's our intention to do that perhaps as early as early next week.

Q: During the last round of Six-Party Talks, I understand the U.S. has given kind of homework to the North Korean side. Were there any implications that the North is doing their homework?

A/S HILL: Well, I don't want to, it's not our job to give people homework. But we do homework; we hope other people do their homework. But I'm not assigning homework to anybody. We do need to use the time wisely between the Six-Party Talks. I think there is a certain impatience in the world, certainly among the press, about trying to get concrete results out of these talks. So I think I was pretty clear last time, at the end of December, that I thought we hadn't made as much progress as we should have in the Beijing round, during December 20^th, during that week.

So I hope we kind of pick up the pace in the next session. That's what these meetings have been about. That's what my meeting in Washington with Ken Sasae was about. That's what my meeting with Chun Young-woo in Washington two weeks ago was about. That's what we did in Berlin. That's what I intend to do here and in Tokyo and then back to Beijing.

We really need to - this is a time to really think very hard, work very hard, and make sure we're in complete communication on what we're trying to achieve, and then let's see if we can get something at the next session.

Q: We can expect some kind of progress next time? At the Six-Party Talks?

A/S HILL: Well, you know I hate predicting progress. I think I predicted that we'd make progress at the end of December, and I was wrong. I don't like to be wrong about those things. But, I can assure you that when I go to these things, I expect there to be progress.

Q: Now, you don't speak for Treasury of course.

A/S HILL: I don't speak for Treasury.

Q: There has been some reports that they're kind of differentiating possibly the accounts at BDA. Is that something that's in play?

A/S HILL: Again, I'm not in a position to discuss the individual nature of the BDA matters. What I did want to make sure is that we had a good mechanism for dealing with that. And I think we did, and we do, and let's see how they do next week.

Q: Is there a basic understand-

A/S HILL: I know that it was a very good substantive discussion in Beijing, and I would expect the two sides to continue that when they meet again. But I want to stress that that's not part of my Six-Party process. I understand why you're asking, because obviously it is related. And I keep tabs on it, but it's not the same thing.

Q: Is the idea to co-locate the Six-Party and the financial talks again?

A/S HILL: Again, I don't want to get into the issue of the financial talks. Where we have them is not determined by any theological position on anybody's part. It's often determined by practical issues of how to get the experts to the right places. I think in Beijing we had them about the same time, although I think the Six-Party Talks started two days earlier. We did the Six-Party Talks in Diaoyutai, and the financial discussions were going on in the two embassies.

Q: You said earlier that normalizing relationship with DPRK. Why did you say that?

A/S HILL: Well, the reason I said that is because if you look at the September statement, the joint statement of September '05, you will see normalization of relations in there. And, by the way, it's not just a bilateral process that would lead to U.S.-DPRK normalization. We also have in mind a process that would lead to DPRK's normalization with Japan, which, if they can resolve some of these issues - these issues are very serious issues and deeply felt by the Japanese people - so if they can take care of those issues, and address those issues, I think it would be in everyone's interest to have this type of diplomatic process go forward. As I've said before, I think the Six-Party process is one that can serve a useful purpose beyond even the main task - the main task being the denuclearization. So, let's see how we do with that.

These are tough issues, I must say. It's been going on for two years and we really want to see them make some progress.

Q: When do you think this normalization would start?

A/S HILL: Again, the task is to get moving on denuclearization. And I think with denuclearization a lot of things are going to not only be possible, but actually much easier with denuclearization. Without denuclearization, if we can't get going on that, a lot of these things we talk about -- future structures for Northeast Asia, that kind of thing -- is going to be very, very difficult indeed. So let's see how we do.

Can you excuse me? I need to get into the hotel and try to make myself presentable, so when I see your Foreign Minister, I won't embarrass my country.

Q: (inaudible)

A/S Hill: (inaudible) We'll have (inaudible) discussions on a few things.

Q: (inaudible) normalization of relations…

A/S Hill: I'd like to remind them that they have obligations under the September statement, but we do too. And I want them to know that we will fulfill our obligations, but they've got to fulfill theirs.

Q: There was a surprise suggestion from the United States to DPRK, I heard that from officials.

A/S Hill: None of that would surprise you if you know about the September statement.

All right. See you later.