Source: http://www.un.int/usa/06_162.htm http://www.un.int/usa/06_162.htm Date: July 12, 2006 United States Mission to the United Nations USUN PRESS RELEASE  #162  (06)   July 12, 2006 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Remarks by Ambassador John R. Bolton, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, on Iran and North Korea, and the Situation in the Middle East, at the Security Council Stakeout, July 12, 2006 Ambassador Oshima: Well, in the informal consultations the Russian delegation and the Chinese delegation introduced a draft resolution on DPRK. Well, China and Russia started form, originally, a press statement and then they moved to presidential statement, and now today they have thought it necessary to present a draft resolution. So there have been important changes to their position in at least the format to the decision the Council should take on this issue. Which in my view, obviously, is a welcomed move in the right direction in our view on the part of China and Russia. Now as far as Japan’s position, and I believe the position of co-sponsors of the draft resolution, which we earlier submitted, firm decision needs to be taken by the Council to address this issue properly. Obviously we have seen a new draft, which will have to be considered by my government, so I will not go into specifics as to how I think of the draft submitted. But a quick glance at the text show that there are very serious gaps on very important issues, so we will study the text, but I believe that it will be very difficult for us to accept that as it is. The important diplomatic mission from China is still pursuing talks with North Korean authorities, we commend their efforts and we hope that a positive outcome will be produced as a result. So we have allowed just a short period of time, a chance for that mission to succeed. And we do hope that positive outcome will be made, but in the meantime, my position and the government of Japan’s positions remain the same, which is to seek an early decision by the Council on the basis of the draft resolution that we submitted. So having said that, as I said, now that we have a draft, of course, it deserves to be studied by my authorities, but I doubt very much that it will be a text that can meet the approval or support of the co-sponsors. Thank you very much. Ambassador Bolton: Well, I think Ambassador Oshima has summed up the major points. And I think it is extremely important to underline that Russia and China started last Wednesday with a press statement, the same thing that was done by the Council in 1998 when North Korea launched a Taepodong 1, that’s where they started, a press statement; then they moved to a presidential statement, a position they held as recently as Tuesday morning. Now they have introduced a draft resolution, which puts us on an apples-to-apples and oranges-to-oranges basis, now we can talk about a resolution, which is the appropriate measure through which the Security Council should act. Ambassador Oshima has taken you through some of the deficiencies that we see in the Russia-China draft on a quick review of it and obviously we will study it closer. As I have said throughout the past week, we would be delighted to see suggestions from Russia and China in connection with our resolution. But we view this as a significant step and think it’s important and look forward to considering the draft resolution that China and Russia circulated today with great interest. Reporter: Last week you said there would be a Chapter 7 resolution, do you now believe there won’t be? And essentially that your going to have to give that up? Ambassador: I don’t know why you asked that. Reporter: Because the Chinese Ambassador just told us right now he would veto the Japanese and US resolution and it’s two big problems are Chapter 7 and international peace and security. Ambassador Bolton: The question that you asked last week was would we go with a PRST and I said no, it would be a Chapter 7 resolution. And that’s the draft we have and that’s draft that eight members of the Council have co-sponsored. I wasn’t addressing the question whether China might veto it, I was asking what we would support and we continue to support a Chapter 7 resolution. Reporter: Are you saying that the draft we had, but the draft that has been put forth by China and Russia has gaps according to Ambassador Oshima, those gaps involve Chapter 7 correct? Can you give us any other specifics that is lacking for you? Ambassador Bolton: They don’t cite in their draft that the missile launches or the missile program or the nuclear program constitute a threat to international peace and security, nor do they use the word “decides” in the operative paragraphs which are weaker than the text of our draft. Now let me just say, some time back about a year or so ago, the legal advisors of the five permanent members of the Security Council met to see if they could reach agreement on what constituted a mandatory resolution of the Security Council under Chapter 7, and they concluded that it basically had three elements: that the council determined that there was a treaty to international pace and security, that they said acting under Chapter 7, and they used the word “decides” in operative paragraphs. Now, you know, in the United States, we’re not great fans of legal formalism so I am sure that’s not the only way to pass a mandatory resolution, but that’s what the legal advisors of all five permanent members, all five permanent members, agreed. And we have felt from the time we learned of the launch of North Korean missiles that a Chapter 7 binding resolution is necessary because we want to bind North Korea. Now if there is language that the Russians and Chinese have to propose that have the same effect of binding the North Koreans, than I suppose were happy to take a look at it. But I think the most significant thing that happened to day, with the introduction of this resolution, is that they have now joined all the other members of the council who have preferred a resolution from the time the missiles were launched. I think that’s a significant step in the direction of the resolution that the eight co-sponsors put forward. Reporter: The Chinese say his instruction from his government, in case your resolution comes up, to veto it, Which the way I understand it, is that those elements that you want, and they object to, they would veto. Would that lead the Council through an impasse? Ambassador Bolton: As of now, we are prepared to proceed at an appropriate time, with a vote on the draft resolution that’s in blue. We’re going study this draft that the Russians and Chinese have submitted. But if they vote no, that’s their perfect right under the Charter, everybody can draw the conclusions they want from that action. But we’re prepared to push ahead for a vote, we have deferred it on the basis on the high level mission in Pyongyang, that’s what the government of China has asked us to do, and that’s what been doing, reviewing it on a day to day basis. But if the resolution comes to a vote and China votes no, then that will be a decision they will have to make. Reporter: Does this have the potential to drag things out some more now that there are two resolutions on the table, rather than the resolution and a PRST? Ambassador Bolton: Well, I have said and Ambassador Oshima has said that if Russia and China would give us proposals to modify the resolution even though it’s in blue then we’d be willing to consider them. We wish that they had done this last week when the rest of the Council was marking up the draft resolution that Japan and others had put forward. So this is a little bit late in the process, but in this case, better late than never that the Russians and Chinese have come so far toward our position, and we’re going to study this carefully. Reporter: (inaudible) Ambassador Bolton: Could I just ask, are there any other questions on Korea, because he’s going back to the United Kingdom. Reporter: You keep saying that it’s sort of a victory that they’ve taken a step closer to your position, when it’s obvious for everyone standing here that there are major red lines that you don’t agree on. How are you going to break that impasse? Ambassador Bolton: What I said was that we were very pleased that they had moved from the 1998 response, which was a press statement to considering a presidential statement to the current position where they’re discussing the text of a resolution. I think any time you move in that direction, that’s moving closer to where we are. But Ambassador Oshima said it quite clearly, there still are significant differences and those are differences we’ll have to take into account. Reporter: Should we be inferring that there has been a failure in the Chinese diplomacy given all this parallel activity on the resolutions? What do you take away Ambassador Bolton? Ambassador Oshima: No, we are anxious to get full report from the Chinese as to the outcome. But so far, not much apparently has happened as we gather. But we are still waiting for a full report from the Chinese. And we look forward to real progress being made as a result of this mission. We do attach a lot of importance to it and we commend the efforts made by the Chinese government as well as by other stakeholders, but this mission is particularly important for all the reasons we know. China is the chair of the six party talks and it is also a country that is a very, very important influence on the country, it’s immediate neighbor. For all these reasons, the mission has a very important task and we hope that it will carry home some important tangible outcome. Reporter: If there were to by any tangible outcome would that change your stance, Japan’s stance? Ambassador Oshima: Well, as I said, my position, the position of Japan, is really to act on the basis of the resolution that we have on the table. Ambassador Bolton: Okay, anything else on North Korea. Reporter: I would like to ask about North Korea. There is two part, the US and Japan and we can see also that China and Russia. What will it take to satisfy China or to satisfy your part so that you can have China on your side? Ambassador Bolton: Well, we’ve said for some time that we’re waiting to see the outcome of the high-level Chinese mission to Pyongyang, and I think we’re still waiting to see the outcome of that mission. But it’s also important to be prepared to press ahead, which is why we’ve put the resolution in blue. Reporter: Would there be any compromise, because you are seeking vote for Chapter 7 and China is seeking for more diplomacy? Ambassador Bolton: We’ll have to take a look at the Chinese draft and see where we go from there. Are we finished on N. Korea? Reporter: (inaudible) Ambassador Bolton: Well, as I said yesterday, the North Koreans would have to agree to reinstitute their commitments not to have launches from the ballistic missiles from the Korean peninsula. And they’d have to commit to not only come back to the Six Party Talks but to implement the September 2005 joint declaration from the Six Party talks. Okay, shall we move on? Those of you who are interested in Korea can talk to Ambassador Oshima. Reporter: Well, what happens next, after the ministerial meeting in Paris moves back here, what’s going to be the pace of this of this? Are you going to reintroduce your resolution? Are you going to reintroduce an amended resolution? What’s going to be the timing? Ambassador Bolton: Perhaps then you can tell me what exactly my foreign minister and the other permanent member foreign ministers agreed to. I’ve been in the Security Council. My understanding is obviously that the meeting is scheduled to conclude about this time, but I haven’t spoken to Secretary Rice so I don’t really have a comment on it. As I said earlier, we are at the ready here to move quickly to implement whatever the foreign ministers have agreed to in Paris, and I’m sure we will as soon as we find out what it is. Reporter: Regarding Palestine and what’s happening in Beirut? Ambassador Bolton: No, I can’t tell you what’s happening in Beirut at the moment. Reporter: (inaudible) ambassador described it as an act of force. Do you support that? Ambassador Bolton: Well, I think Secretary Rice has spoken to the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers that occurred earlier. And I don’t really have anything to add at this point to the statement that she made in Paris. Reporter: Is there any (inaudible) contemplated on the situation in Lebanon? Ambassador Bolton: Well, I think there is-we’ve been given to understand there’s one circulating, but I think I’d like to find out more about facts on the ground before I really consider that. Reporter: (inaudible) the resolution that has been contemplated on the other issue, on Gaza? Ambassador Bolton: I think those are largely separate subjects as far as I can tell. I’ll just take one more here. Reporter: On Gaza, yesterday Jan Egeland said that Israel should be responsible to repair the bombed electrical plant because it’s a civilian asset and they targeted it specifically. Do you have any view on that? Ambassador Bolton: No I don’t have any view on that. Okay that’s it. I’ll be back later I’m sure.