외교부

(질의) (연합뉴스) 라이스 장관께 질문을 드리겠습니다. 독도와 과거사문제로 한일관계가 극도로 악화되어 있습니다. 한국 정부는 일본 정부가 행동으로 식민지 지배에 사과와 반성이 없다면 일본의 UN 상임이사국 진출에 협력하기 어렵다는 점을 밝혔고 다른 피해국들의 인식도 마찬가지라고 생각합니다. 그러나  라이스 장관은 어제 일본에서 가진 공개강연에서 일본의 상임이사국 진출에 대한 공식지지 입장을 밝혔습니다. 한국민들은 라이스 장관이 하필이면 왜 이 시점에 그런 발언을 했는지 의구심을 가지고 있습니다. 장관이 발언을 의도적으로 한 것인지, 아니면 한.일관계의 역사를 모르고 한 것인지 밝혀 주십시오.

(응답) (Rice 장관) Well, first of all, the United States made known publicly that we intended to support Japan for a permanent seat in the Security Council last August. It was made public by Secretary Powell.
        And we have also said that we support the Security Council reform in context of broader United Nations reform, and we are at the beginning of the process, not at the end of it.
Our view is that we have good relations with our democratic ally here in the Republic of Korea.
Let me make this clear: we have good relations with the Republic of Korea which is democratic.
And we have good relations with Japan, which is also a democratic ally.
Because we, the United States, has been able to maintain those relationships,  because we have maintained military alliances in the region, because we have strong economic commerce in this region for several decades.
This region has been able to develop peacefully into one which prosperous in which strong democracies are now present.
I said also in Japan that 21st century will be different than in the past, when power will be defined in terms of the power of ideas.
And we, with the Republic of Korea, also with Japan are pursuing the power of the ideal of freedom and we are doing it globally.

(질의) (AP) Madam Secretary, if I heard the Foreign Minister correctly, he seemed to suggest that the Six Party Talks offer a venue for the United States to talk directly to North Korea and that seems to be somewhat at odds with your description of the Six-Party Talks as quite the opposite of the way to avoid the one-on-one relationship that you’ve said North Korea seems to want and which it has said is helpful. Do you have a different opinion on what the Six Party Talks are and how they go forward?

(응답) (Rice 장관) My understanding is, and we just talked about this, we have exactly the same view on the Six-Party Talks, which is that there are six parties. And the importance of the fact that there are six parties is that we have, at least with the United States, Japan, South Korea, Russia and China, a very strong view that there should be non-nuclear Korean Peninsula. Now, it’s also well known that at the table we are talking to each other, we are talking, everybody can't talk at once, so of course we are talking to each other. But this is in a Six-Party framework. The reason that sometimes I think the North Koreans press for so called bilateral talks is that they would like to get back to a time when it was an issue between the United States and North Korea. This is not an issue between the United States and North Korea. A non-nuclear Korean peninsula is in a very strong national interest of the United States, of Japan -- we just heard that from the Japanese. We heard that from the South Korean Foreign Minister. The Chinese have said it. The Russians have said it, and so this is not an issue of the United States and North Korea, this is an issue of the neighborhood and what kind of Korean Peninsula we are going to have.

(반기문 장관) 제가 라이스 장관의 답변과 관련해서, 6자회담 내에서의 미-북한간 대화에 대해서는 한.미 간에 그간 긴밀히 협의를 해 와서 의견의 일치를 가지고 있고, 이런 점은 제가 지난 2월 미국 방문 했을 때, 제가 미국 정부하고도 다시 확인한 것을, CNN 회견 할 때도 그런 내용을 다시 한번 이야기를 했는데, 6자회담 틀 내에서 미.북간의 양자회담을 갖는 것은 향후의 입장을 서로 이해하는데 도움이 된다고 생각합니다. 아울러서 라이스 장관이 밝힌 바와 같이 북한 핵문제는 미.북간의 문제라기보다는 지역적이고 또 세계적인 문제이기 때문에 국제사회가 공동으로 대처해야 된다고 생각합니다.
(Rice 장관) And let me say that is exactly our understanding. Of course when we’re at the table, there are sometimes direct dialogues between the United States and North Korea in the context of Six-Party Talks, because what we will not do is to separate out the United States from the Six-Party Talks.

(질의) (YTN) 라이스 장관께 여쭤보겠습니다. 북핵문제와 관련해서 두 가지가 되겠습니다. 라이스 장관님께서는 어제 강연에서 미국의 고위 당국자로서는 이례적으로 북한을 주권국가라고 표현한 것으로 듣고 있습니다. 이 발언은 북한에서 6자회담 복귀를 위한 분위기 개선을 요구한 것에 대해서 우회적으로 반응한 것이다, 이렇게 해석을 해도 되는지, 아니면 다른 것을 준비하고 있는지 여쭤보고 싶습니다. 두 번째 질문은, 라이스 장관께서는 아시아 순방이 끝날 때까지 북한이 회담 복귀 결정을 내리지 않는다면 북한에 대해서 압박조치를 취하겠다는 계획을 갖고 있다는 보도가 나온 것이 있습니다. 이와 관련해서 크리스토퍼 힐 대사도 상원답변에서 6자회담 교착상태를 언제까지나 두고 볼 수는 없다고 발언하신 것으로 알고 있습니다. 이에 대해서 라이스 장관의 입장은 무엇인지, 그리고 오늘 오전 노무현 대통령과의 협의에서 이런 문제가 논의됐는지 말씀해주시면 감사하겠습니다.

(응답) (Rice 장관) Thank you very much. First of all, I think we could say it’s statement of a fact that North Korea is a sovereign state. It’s in the United Nations, we are in negotiations with it in the Six-Party Talks. The North Koreans also know that the United States has said repeatedly we have no intension of invading or attacking North Korea. And in fact, if North Korea is prepared to make a strategic choice, we have said within the context of the Six-Party Talks, there will be security assurance for North Korea.  
It is also the case that there is a proposal on the table in the Six-Party Talks in addition to the idea of security assurances within the Six-Party Talks. The parties have said they are prepared to study North Korea and address North Korea’s energy needs. Some of the parties talked about fuel deliveries to the North Koreans and I might just note that outside the context of the Six-Party Talks, the United States continues to be a large food aid donor to try to alleviate the suffering of the North Korean people.
I would hope that all of this taken together would suggest to North Korea that the Six-Party Talks are the place that they can get actually the respect they have desired and they can get the assistance that they need. It is true that we need to resolve this issue. It cannot go on forever. But the United States has been committed to this route, to this diplomatic, multilateral forum, and we remain committed to make it work. The Foreign Minister and I did talk about intensifying our efforts, all of us, including hopefully the Chinese, because we do need to address the problem. (interpreter : The reporter has also asked whether these topics have been discussed this at the meeting with President Roh Moo-hyun this morning.) Yes, we did discuss the Six-Party Talks with the President this morning.


(질의) (ABC 방송) You are off to Beijing next. And as you well know China's military spending has been growing at double digit rates for at least a decade. I'm wondering what about that you find concerning and what kind of impact would a lifting the EU arms embargo have on that, and finally what will the United States do to respond?

(응답) Of course it’s concerning because the United States is in the Pacific and its military presence in the Pacific is there simply trying to maintain a stable environment. I think we have managed over the last decades to maintain a stable environment and that is why we had the conditions for economic growth and for political development and democracy in this region. And so obviously anything that would appear to try and alter that balance would be a concern to us. The United States will of course maintain and modernize its forces that military balance can be maintained in the Asia-Pacific  so that region can continue along a peaceful path, can continue along a democratic path and can continue in economic prosperity. We have a lot of work that we can and will do with China and I think the relationship has been constructive, it's been constructive in getting together for the Six-Party Talks. China has been constructive in a war on terrorism. I've even noted that China is as far away as in Haiti supporting police operations there. So there’s a lot that we can do with China that is constructive. We have our differences, and China's internal transition is still underway.
And as to the EU arms embargo, we've been very clear. Our view is that it is not appropriate in terms of either its original reason which had to do with Tiananmen, but also that the United States, Japan and Korea are Pacific powers, that we are committed to a peaceful and stable Asia-Pacific region and that there are concerns about the rise of Chinese military spending and potentially Chinese military power and its increasing sophistication. And that the European Union should do nothing to contribute to a circumstance in which Chinese military modernization brought on European technology or even the political decision to suggest that it could draw on European technology, when in fact it is the United States not Europe that has defended the Pacific.  /끝/