Res Communis

White House Press Secretary on UN Security Council and DPRK

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

From the White House:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secrectary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release April 14, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING
BY PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:17 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Before I get started, let me just make a few remarks.

The U.N. Security Council yesterday unanimously called on North Korea to implement the September 2005 agreement to eliminate its nuclear weapons program. North Korea’s announced threat to withdraw from the six-party talks and restart its nuclear program is a serious step in the wrong direction. North Korea will not find acceptance by the international community unless it verifiably abandons its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The six-party talks offer North Korea the best path towards that acceptance through dialogue. The United States is prepared to work with North Korea and its neighbors through the six-party process to reduce tensions and achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons from the Korean Peninsula.

We call on North Korea to cease its provocative threats, to respect the will of the international community, and to honor its international commitments and obligations.

And with that, take us away.

Q Actually, I wanted to ask about North Korea. Apparently they have — I wanted to ask if you know whether they have kicked out U.N. and U.S. personnel.

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the answer to that, but we can certainly check and see if there’s updated guidance from NSC.

Q And then just more broadly, it seems like the situation with North Korea, the six-party talks, the whole trajectory is kind of unraveling. What’s the strategy to pull things back on track?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let’s — let me go a little bit broader for a second, because I know that after the launch some time ago, there was certainly interest in what was going to happen at the United Nations. And as I said in that brief statement, that — and I think the administration is quite pleased with the result out of the United Nations in the condemnation for the launch, in requesting that the North Koreans abandon the pursuit of its program and fulfill its obligations based on the agreement that it made, that it refrain from further provocations and that the — what the U.N. said is that there’s a time period to look at additional — the possibility of additional — additional sanctions.

So we’re pleased with what we got –

Q Won’t the North Koreans get the message that condemnations and requests for them to change actions are not exactly strong statements to make to a country that’s repeatedly defied, as you said, its obligations?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t — let me turn that question a little bit around, because I think there was some question about whether or not you could even get five members of a Security Council, or five of the permanent members of the Security Council to agree on a condemnation. Yesterday, 15 countries unanimously stood up and spoke out about the launch.

Q But it took almost two weeks to get there.

MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, sometimes progress takes longer than a couple of days. I think that — I know that you all had an interest in what the Security Council was going to do; at least you did several days ago. I think it’s important to understand what the Security Council did. And remember, this is not — this is asking the North Koreans to live up to the agreement that the North Koreans entered into. This is not some pie-in-the-sky thing that a group of countries has asked another to do. This is the unanimous Security Council asking the North Koreans to live up to the obligations that it entered into in September of 2005, that we can seek a denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Q Yes, but one might reasonably wonder where the leverage is if every agreement they make, they eventually decide to break.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think part of the leverage is going back to, again, some doubt that many of you may have had in the moments or hours after the launch as to whether countries could act in concert, together, to condemn the launch.

I think there certainly was some doubt expressed for that, and I think the manner in which the Security Council came to this condemnation is extremely important.

Yes, sir. . . .

. . . Q Robert, two questions, a follow-up on North Korea. Can you explain how the — what the U.N. did yesterday sort of backs up what the President said in Prague, which was –

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q — rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must mean something.

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q Do you feel as if this U.N. resolution makes all three of those statements true?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, the President asked that the launch be condemned, that it violated U.N. Resolution 1718, and the statement clearly says that. The President called for condemnation that included language that says that North Korea must abandon its nuclear program and meet the obligations that it agreed to. It says that. The resolution — the President asked that resolutions say that further provocations and launches not be undertaken, and it says that. The President asked that additional sanctions be reviewed, and the resolution passed unanimously by the 15 members of the Security Council says that.

Q So you feel that the rules are binding based on this.

MR. GIBBS: Absolutely.

Q And that there will be other consequences if they continue to violate them.

MR. GIBBS: Absolutely. That’s all contained in the resolution that was –

Q What are those consequences?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the international community is working through that. I think the notion that some of the people on the Security Council took part in the condemnation is an important step. I think it is important, as I said, that the North Koreans understand that they have to live up to their obligations and that it’s time to return to what at one point were very productive six-party talks. . . .

. . . Q Robert, back on North Korea. What role does China have to play in this next round of six-party talks? And also I want to ask a question that I asked last week: What about Bo?

MR. GIBBS: What about?

Q The dog.

MR. GIBBS: Oh, the dog? In what order of importance should I address your — both of your questions?

Q Let’s go to North Korea first.

MR. GIBBS: Okay. That was a trick question, actually. Go ahead, I’m joking.

I think China has played and I think the President and the administration want and expect China to play a very constructive role in this process. I go back again to what many people thought might happen at the U.N. after the launch many days ago — I forget how many.

But the Chinese were actively involved in the statement that came out of the U.N. and Security Council yesterday, and the Chinese have been active in calling for the North Koreans to come back to the table, engage in the six-party talks, and live up to the obligations that they helped broker in September of 2005 that are important for the North Koreans to live up to.

But I think the Chinese are playing a constructive role, and we would certainly want and expect that to continue. . . .