The United States has made it very clear to North Korea that it harbors no hostile intent toward that communist regime, according to State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher.

During the January 15 State Department press briefing, Boucher reiterated the non-aggressive nature of U.S. policy toward the Pyongyang regime: "We have made clear that we have no hostile intent, no intent to attack the North (Koreans)."

Citing President Bush's January 14 statement, and earlier remarks by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, Boucher said the United States was prepared "to take a bold approach to our relationships and to do things that would benefit the North Korean people if North Korea was willing to meet our concerns."

Boucher said progress in relations between Washington and Pyongyang was not possible, however, "because North Korea had embarked on a program of uranium enrichment."

By restarting its nuclear program, Pyongyang had not only damaged its relations with the United States, Boucher said, but had derailed progress in relations with other nations.

"I think North Korea will understand the loss that they are suffering, the opportunities that they are not going to have, the progress in relationships that they are not going to have until they are willing to verifiably and promptly dismantle these programs, this nuclear program," Boucher said.

The Bush Administration, Boucher said, "has made clear that we are willing to talk to North Korea about how it can meet its obligations to the international community."

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

NORTH KOREA

1-2 U.S. and Allies Set Up Meetings and Talks with North Korea
2 Post-Richardson Talks with North Koreans
2-3 North Korea Presses for Non-aggression Agreement
3 Meeting IAEA Obligations
4-5 Possible Attendance of the World Economic Forum
5 Comments from the North Korean Foreign Minister
5 Denial of Uranium Enrichment Program
9 Bolton's Meeting in London with the French and British
9 Haas's to Meet with Allies to Discuss North Korea
10 Kelly's Meeting in Beijing

QUESTION: The North Koreans have not reacted favorably to what the President was saying yesterday, calling it pie in the sky, and I was wondering if you had any reaction.

MR. BOUCHER: I do not think we want to get into a daily back and forth over North Korean rhetoric. The point, I think, is that the United States has made clear that we are willing to talk to North Korea about how it can meet its obligations to the international community. We have made that clear repeatedly and at the highest levels of our government.

As you point out, North Korea has yet to take up -- take any action on this offer. But there are, I think, upcoming events and opportunities for North Korea to say what it has to say, whether in public or in private.

What I would point out, there are a series of envoys and meetings planned between North Koreans and some people -- like the Secretary General's representative, the Australians, have meeting dates announced, I think, for meetings with the South Koreans which is a North-South process that we have always supported. I think the Russians have said they are sending an envoy. I am not sure what the Chinese are doing.

But in all these cases I think North Korea will understand the loss that they are suffering, the opportunities that they are not going to have, the progress in relationships that they are not going to have until they are willing to verifiably and promptly dismantle these programs, this nuclear program in particular -- the HEU program -- and the steps that they've taken against -- to reverse the IAEA inspections.

So I think that point will become more and more clear to them as these meetings proceed, that they are losing out on many opportunities. It is also a chance, if they wish to, to tell people things about what they might do in regard to meeting their obligations. So let us see how some of this plays out.

QUESTION: Richard, do you know, has there been any post-Richardson direct contact through the New York channel between you and the North Koreans?

MR. BOUCHER: There is sort of routine -- there is regular contact from time to time. I do not know of anything particularly since 'post-Richardson' -- which would have been since Saturday. Not that I know of, but it does occur from time to time. I am not sure.

QUESTION: Richard, a follow-up to that. Do you know if Governor Richardson himself has had any follow-up contact since the formal meetings in Santa Fe?

MR. BOUCHER: He said he would send his final report and he sent that over the weekend, Saturday or Sunday, to the Secretary. I think that is the last time they had direct contact.

QUESTION: Richard, a couple of things. The North Koreans are still pressing for a non-aggression agreement of some kind. You've offered fuel and food. What's your position on this particular request for the non-aggression agreement?

MR. BOUCHER: The same as it was two weeks ago.

QUESTION: Wait a minute. Could you spell it out? What is your objection to this --

MR. BOUCHER: I will be glad to give you all the transcripts. This is a question we have answered a dozen times, the Secretary of State has answered a dozen times. We have made clear that we have no hostile intent, no intent to attack the North.

As the President made clear yesterday and as Jim Kelly made clear in October when he was in Pyongyang -- and as we have made clear to you ever since then -- that the United States was prepared to take a bold approach to our relationships and to do things that would benefit the North Korean people if North Korea was willing to meet our concerns. But that kind of progress was not possible in our relationship because North Korea had embarked on a program of uranium enrichment.

As I said, that is true not just for the United States, but that is quite clear in terms of North Korea's relations with other governments and countries as well, that progress that might have occurred or might have been expected in their relations is not occurring because of North Korea's nuclear program.

QUESTION: And they brought up a new issue today, which was the US disarmament, which brings us back to Article 6 of the NPT. Do you have a more considered response to that question?

MR. BOUCHER: I thought my response to you previously on the question was very well considered.

Eli?

QUESTION: Well, do you -- I mean, do you recognize there is a --

MR. BOUCHER: It is a ridiculous argument that Article 6 of the NPT overrides specific obligations to the IAEA.

Terri or Eli?

QUESTION: I just -- just on the question, food is not part of any negotiation in this, is it? The US support, the US food aid, is through international organizations and would continue either way. Am I correct?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, but food is not just food assistance. As I mentioned, part of the bold approach, as the President mentioned yesterday - areas such as food, agriculture, energy, whatever. The President mentioned energy and food. Part of the bold approach had been that we were willing to take steps to improve the economic prospects of the people of North Korea and with that goes that it is not just food assistance. Food assistance itself, as you know, goes on a humanitarian and needs-based basis - a basis of humanitarian needs -- and not in relation to political or other factors.

QUESTION: So, as far as you know, there was no basis last night for a report that came out saying US officials are saying there might be a letter sent from President Bush to the North Koreans?

MR. BOUCHER: It was not true at all. Is that "no basis"?

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: That would probably cover it.

QUESTION: In your opening answer to George's question, you talked about upcoming events and opportunities for the North Koreans to respond or offer different -- perhaps change their minds and offer a different response. And then you talked about the series of delegations. Is that -- were those specifically those where the events and opportunities not --

MR. BOUCHER: I am sure those are the ones that I could recall at this moment. I am sure there are probably some others that -- but as I said, we are looking carefully at what they say. We are looking carefully at what they said to Governor Richardson. We will look seriously at that. We will look at what else they have to say and do in the coming as events unfold.

QUESTION: I'm not trying to get ahead of the game here, but would you encourage the North Koreans to send someone to the World Economic Forum?

MR. BOUCHER: I --

QUESTION: Others have encouraged them to. I'm wondering if you think that (inaudible) good idea.

MR. BOUCHER: I do not know of any plan or any indication that they are prepared to go to Davos to meet the needs of the international community. The issue, as we have so often discussed in this room, is whether North Korea is going to eliminate, dismantle its program of uranium enrichment and reestablish its compliance with obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency. They are hearing that message from many, many governments, in many ways, as well as from us. That is the issue. Sending somebody here, talking to somebody, there is an opportunity to make clear they are prepared to do that. Whatever channel or forum, private or public that they decide to make clear that they are going to do that does not matter so much as whether or not they are going to do that.

QUESTION: Well, what I mean, I mean the Secretary General --

MR. BOUCHER: We are not looking to invite them to Davos so that we might have a meeting with them there. If that is -- whatever they do in Davos, that is their own decision and choice. Whatever they say in Davos, that is their own decision and choice. But no, we are not trying to set up some meeting in Davos.

QUESTION: Okay, and then --

QUESTION: Is (inaudible) going to be there?

MR. BOUCHER: Nothing more firm than I had before. We are looking at Davos, looking to go if we can.

QUESTION: And just one last thing on the North Koreans. I realize you don't want to get into the -- I know you said the daily back and forth on rhetoric, but do you have any comment on the, you know, particularly dated choice of words in the latest bombast out of the North Korean Foreign Minister?

MR. BOUCHER: I do not do "bombast."

QUESTION: I know you don't.

MR. BOUCHER: Just the facts. No, I do not have any -- I do not have any comment on their choice of words, which is my understanding of what rhetoric is.

Nicholas?

QUESTION: Richard, it seems in the past few days they've kind of backtracked on the uranium enrichment program. Their Ambassador to Moscow yesterday, or early on Monday, said that it was a lie and there was no such program. Is your understanding that they said this many times, but they acknowledged that --

MR. BOUCHER: They have a program. They acknowledged having a program when Jim Kelly was in Pyongyang. We had three translators in the room. We know what they said.

Well, if that is it, we can all go home. Okay?

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, thank you.