브리핑멘트
Also last week I was asked about the status of our review of North Korea and the question of state sponsorship of terrorism. And this review process continues. It’s actually a never-ending process. We’re always evaluating information that is available to us in concert with the relevant statutes. But it is our judgment that the sinking of the
Cheonan is not an act of international terrorism and by itself would not trigger placing North
Korea on the state sponsor of terrorism list. That said, we continue to evaluate information that is consistently coming into us regarding North Korean activities, and we will not hesitate to take action if we have information that North Korea has repeatedly provided support for acts of terrorism. So that is an ongoing process.
--------------------------------------
QUESTION: Does that constitute an act of war then? I mean, what is it if it’s not --
MR. CROWLEY: Well, it certainly is a violation of the existing armistice between North and South. And we are obviously seeking a meeting with North
Korean officials to discuss that. I think there’s been some reporting that North Korea has, at least for the moment, declined to participate in that meeting. But this is a – it was a state-on-state action and by itself does not constitute an act of international terrorism. That said, we obviously have plenty of concerns about activity of North Korea in terms of its well-established export of weapons and dangerous technology and know-how and we will continue to watch North Korea very carefully and will not hesitate to take action if we think that there are actions that North Korea has taken which do, in fact, demonstrate a consistent support for international terrorism.
QUESTION: At what level are you seeking that meeting with the North Koreans?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, this is – there’s an established process if we have – if we want to raise questions that – about violations of the armistice. We believe that the
Cheonan was, in fact, a violation of the armistice. We’ve sought meetings at various levels and thus far they have not been set up.
-----------------------------------------------
QUESTION: Going back to North Korea – South. On the ground, it’s always said that the final agreement about ending the war was never signed. So do you have anything to say on that?
MR. CROWLEY: That’s true. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah. I was in South Korea and North Korea and this is – was exactly what – they said the war is still on. So how do you define that?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, and that is – that’s a fact that technically, the two countries remain at a state of conflict. We obviously would like to see that resolved. But clearly, there are things that North
Korea will have to do if it wants to have better relations with its neighbors and, in particular, South Korea.
QUESTION: Now, is South Korea doing anything to proceed with this?
MR. CROWLEY: Is South Korea doing anything --
QUESTION: To proceed with this signing of the end of the war?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, that’s a matter of – I mean, that’s a matter, I think, for the United Nations would oversee that process. But at this point, what we’re doing in light of the North Korean provocations, we’re continuing to work with South Korea to strengthen our defense cooperation. You heard over the weekend decisions made by the presidents of the United States and South Korea regarding operational control of forces on the peninsula. We obviously would like to see North Korea cease its provocative action and construct better relations with its neighbors, take affirmative steps towards denuclearization of the peninsula. Those would be the kinds of things that we think would create the proper environment to resolve the armistice and establish peace and stability on the peninsula. But that is, at this point, up to North Korea.
브리핑 SCRIPT 직접보기
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/06/143710.htm
