Patrick Ventrell

Acting Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC March 27, 2013

Index for Today's Briefing

SYRIA

Assad Regime / Syrian Opposition Coalition / Arab League / Coordination / U.S. Assistance / Extremist Elements

International Nonproliferation Concerns

NORTH KOREA

DPRK Rhetoric / Threats / Communication Channels

International Obligations

MIDDLE EAST PEACE

Concern for Palestinian People / Humanitarian Needs

CHINA

China's Military Developments / Free Flow of Commerce

BURMA

Communal Unrest / Condolences

SYRIA

UN Fact Finding Mission on Chemical Weapons / Russian Involvement in Investigation

HONDURAS

U.S. Assistance / Vetting

UNITED NATIONS

Arms Treaty / Ongoing Diplomacy

TRANSCRIPT:

QUESTION: North Korea?

MR. VENTRELL: Yeah.

QUESTION: North Korea announced that it cut its last military hotline with Seoul, so do you have any concern that may cause some misunderstandings that will lead to some conflicts?

MR. VENTRELL: Well, you heard my statement yesterday that North Korea’s bellicose rhetoric and threats follow a pattern designed to raise tension and intimidate others, and we think their latest threat to cut off communication links coupled with its provocative rhetoric is not constructive to ensuring peace and stability on the peninsula. So that’s really our position.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: In concrete terms, though, what does this mean if they’re cut off the military hotline?

MR. VENTRELL: I’m not sure, (inaudible) that I have an analysis of which all the hotlines are. We ourselves have a way of communicating with the North Koreans and a channel for doing so, but in terms of these sort of – I’d refer you to DOD on military-to-military.

QUESTION: And your channel of communication is still in place, is it?

MR. VENTRELL: It’s still in place.

QUESTION: And just on North Korea, can I continue?

MR. VENTRELL: Sure.

QUESTION: There’s a Chinese border province, Jilin, has announced plans to increase transport and trade links with North Korea. I wonder what the United States position might be on that.

MR. VENTRELL: This is a private company, you’re saying, or --

QUESTION: No, it’s Jilin province is going to boost its transport and trade links. Notably it’s going to speed up construction of an express railway between the cities of Chongjin to – into North Korea.

MR. VENTRELL: Yeah. So I’m not aware of a specific provincial government decision, but we make clear to the Chinese central government repeatedly our concerns about North Korea and they know our position.

QUESTION: And this would seem to flout the sanctions that are being put into place.

MR. VENTRELL: I’m not aware of sort of what sanctions that may implicate, but we make our concerns clear to the central government.

QUESTION: Still on North Korea?

MR. VENTRELL: Sure.

QUESTION: I understand the U.S. position as reiterated just now and what you said yesterday.

MR. VENTRELL: Yes.

QUESTION: It doesn’t seem like that’s going to change anytime soon. So basically, is the United States waiting until North Korea blinks first?

MR. VENTRELL: No, I mean, our policy is clear. We remain prepared to engage constructively with North Korea, but North Korea must live up to its commitments, adhere to its international obligations, deal peacefully with its neighbors, and refrain from this provocative action. So that’s --

QUESTION: And a follow-up on that. In your consultations about what to do about North Korea with your partners in Japan and South Korea, are they just content to kind of toe the same line as you, or are they asking you to do more, either sanctions or otherwise?

MR. VENTRELL: We remain in close contact with our allies in the region. And as I said yesterday, we’re fully capable of defending ourself and also of our allies. So we’re committed to the protection of our allies and we stay in close consultation.

QUESTION: North Korea?

MR. VENTRELL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. U.S. Government have been saying that North Korea should be back to the table with the (inaudible). So what is the criteria they should have, like the joint statement 2005 or the agreement between U.S. last February?

MR. VENTRELL: I mean, clearly they need to – and we’ve talked about the joint statement from 2005 – that they need to come into compliance with that. Those are their commitments and they need to come into compliance with their international obligations.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:28 p.m.)