기사 확대기사 축소

[미국국무부]Daily Press Briefing에서 북한과 한국에 관한 Philip J. Crowley의 발언
미국국무부   
 

다음은 미국 국무부   http://www.state.gov 에 있는  

Daily Press Briefing에서  북한과 한국에 관한     

Assistant Secretary
             Philip J. Crowley의 발언입니다.

영문 기사 뒤에 조선닷컴의 기사도 있습니다.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philip J. Crowley

 
Assistant Secretary

Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

 
May 25, 2010

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

QUESTION: P.J., on North Korea you mentioned the Secretary’s remarks in Beijing. I believe it was after she commented that the North Koreans announced that they were cutting off all communication and ties with the South. Could you comment on that move?


 

And also, are you seeing any other indications of action, preparatory actions by the North either in missile tests or any other kind of military-related action?


 

MR. CROWLEY: I have not heard of any – anything that has drawn immediate concern in terms of actions by North Korea. But obviously, that will be something that we’ll be watching carefully in the coming days.


 

I think it’s odd. South Korea is one of the most dynamic economies in the world. North Korea is a failing economy, even by their own admission. North Korea is unable to care for its citizens. It’s unable to feed its people. And so I can’t imagine a step that is less in the long-term interest of the North Korean people than cutting off further ties with South Korea.


 

QUESTION: P.J., you used the words “frank and detailed conversations.” Frank usually has a negative connotation in your world.


 

MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn’t read too much into that, Jill.


 

QUESTION: Yeah. So does that mean you’re having trouble with China on getting them aboard on getting to the UN on the issue of the sinking of the ship?


 

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I don’t think so. Actually, I think we are pleased by a pledge on both sides to continue close consultation. The Secretary will leave in about eight hours time for Seoul, where she will have a working lunch with President Lee and then a follow-up meeting with Foreign Minister Yu. I believe during the course of the day, the Secretary mentioned that Premier Wen of China will be visiting Seoul on Friday.


 

So we are, as we’ve said, very supportive of the careful, detailed approach that South Korea has taken to this hostile act by North Korea. And we will continue to consult closely with China, with South Korea, and with Japan and others as we look to see what the appropriate international response to this is.


 

QUESTION: Well, where are you, then? What’s the status of getting China to support what you would like to do, which is put it before the UN Security Council?


 

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have talked with China today. We will talk with South Korea tomorrow. I think there’s a pledge to stay in close contact in the coming days. But we will be guided by what President Lee and South Korea feel is the appropriate response to this. As the Secretary and other – and the president have indicated, there will be consequences for South Korea’s provocative action.[2] We believe that there should be a very strong, determined international response.


 

I would note that we were in a similar – perhaps not quite as – a similar, but not parallel situation more than a year ago with a series of provocative actions by North Korea. And working closely together, that resulted in UN Security Council Resolution 1874, which has, we think, satisfactorily addressed our specific concerns regarding North Korea and its missile and nuclear program.


 

So we will be looking at a variety of options. That’s why the Secretary has met this week with her counterparts in Tokyo and Beijing, to Seoul tomorrow, and then we’ll work collaboratively in terms of the appropriate response.


 

QUESTION: But the Secretary said today in – when she was in Asia that China understands the gravity of this situation. But are they doing enough about it? Are they too careful?


 

MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, let’s not get ahead of what will be very important consultations in Seoul in the next three days with not only the Secretary of State of the United States, but Premier Wen from China. So I think that we are satisfied that China understands how we see this. I think they understand and will understand how serious South Korea views this.


 

We all want the same thing. We all want peace and stability in the region. There appears to be one country that doesn’t. That’s North Korea. We have worked closely and collaboratively in the past. We’ve sent strong messages to North Korea in the past. China has the same interest that we have. And this is why the Secretary – it was valuable for the Secretary to have the high-level discussions that she had with President Hu Jintao and others in Beijing the last couple of days.


 

Lalit.

QUESTION: Do you think the steps being taken by North Korea is heading towards North and South – towards military confrontation in the coming days? The steps being taken by North Korea is headed towards a military confrontation in the region?


 

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, the last thing that we need – we have enough tension in the Korean Peninsula right now based on the action that North Korea has taken. We have no interest in seeing further provocations. The Secretary made that clear in Beijing today. We are looking to see how we can influence North Korean thinking and, most importantly, North Korean behavior. And we’ll be working closely with our regional partners to see what should be done and what can be done to have the greatest impact on the North Korean leadership.


 

QUESTION: You’ve talked – you’ve emphasized the collaborative nature of this response, but I’m wondering, does the U.S. have anything it can do unilaterally to impress upon the North Koreans the U.S. position on things, specifically about the state sponsor of terrorism list? I know the Secretary addressed this sort of glancingly in Beijing, but can you explain why or why not that might not be a tool that could be used now?


 

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we – I think we have steps that we can take bilaterally. I think the Pentagon talked yesterday about particular actions on the military side, including maneuvers, the prospect of additional training to – as we review the capabilities that we have within our military alliance with South Korea. I mean, there are things that we have that we can apply constructively to this situation and we will do so if appropriate.


 

QUESTION: But specifically, the state sponsor of terrorism, whether or not it goes back on that list, is that something that might be – might come into play here?


 

MR. CROWLEY: Before – Andy, before you came back here, the last few days, I’ve been asked about this.


 

QUESTION: Okay.


 

MR. CROWLEY: And I have pledged that our merry band of lawyers will be reviewing all options as we go through this.


 

QUESTION: And just to follow up on that, would it be possible maybe for one of your merry band of lawyers to give us a little – it could be a background briefing – something on how this works? I mean, we know what the catchphrases are that come from the podium, but we never really perhaps get as full an understanding as we might.


 

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, the particulars of listing a country on the state sponsor of terrorism list, the particulars are outlined in law. It is a deliberately arduous process because there are broad legal and potentially economic consequences if we take that action. We’ll be guided by the facts of this particular case. I’m not going to judge any particular outcome here. But obviously, it is a question that many are raising and we are reviewing it.

Yeah.


 

QUESTION: Outside of the state sponsors of terrorism list, there are some reports that you’re considering levying some sort of financial sanctions, unilateral financial sanctions, on North Korea. Can you tell us anything about that?


 

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let’s not get ahead of the process here. We will have consultations this week. We’ll be looking at a range of options. There are things that we can do multilaterally. There are things that we can do unilaterally in terms of economic measures. We have done that successfully in the past. We have found ways to influence the thinking and put pressure on the North Korean regime, and if those – if we think that there are options available to us that can deliver that kind of stern message, we will not hesitate to take that kind of action.


 

We already have broad-based authorities under existing resolutions to take that kind of action and that’s what we have done in the past when we’ve seen these kinds of provocative actions by North Korea. We will not hesitate to do that again.


 

QUESTION: Do you think --


 

MR. CROWLEY: Go ahead.


 

QUESTION: Do you think China believes North Korea is responsible based on Secretary Clinton’s talks with the Chinese?


 

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I’ll let my counterpart in China describe what their thinking is. We, of course, believe that the investigation by South Korea was thorough. It was scientific. China has laid out what it thought the standards of the investigation should be. And we think that South Korea has made a very compelling case that North Korea was responsible for the ship sinking.


 

QUESTION: Can you give a sense of the type – nature of discussions you had with the Chinese during the S&E Dialogue – one – number one on Afghanistan and Pakistan, secondly on Burma, and finally on Tibet?


 

MR. CROWLEY: Well, during the course of the S&ED, there were sessions on regional issues. China has influence with respect to Burma. It is, as Kurt Campbell said before leaving for the region, it is an area of significant concern to us both in terms of Burma’s relationship with its own population, but also the – Burma’s activity which has broader concerns. We have concerns about Burma’s cooperation with North Korea, for example.


 

So I haven’t had a detailed readout of those sessions, but we, again, share common interests with China. And in some cases, they can have influences with certain actors in the region that are more significant than ours.

 

---------------------------------------------

QUESTION: North Korea?


 

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.


 

QUESTION: South Korea has reportedly decided to refer to North Korea as the main enemy again. What would be the corresponding moves to be made by the U.S. side on this issue?


 

MR. CROWLEY: Well, the – I mean, we have a history on the Korean Peninsula as well, and what North Korea has done is a violation of the armistice. I think we take note of steps that South Korea has done in terms of resuming propaganda efforts across the border. I think that we – as I said, we completely support South Korea’s efforts to send a clear message to North Korea that there will be consequences for the action that North Korea has taken.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

다음은 조선닷컴   http://www.chosun.com 에 있는 기사입니다.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

국제
미국ㆍ중남미

미국 "北, 자신의 주민 먹여 살릴 능력 없어"

 

  • 입력 : 2010.05.27 03:07 / 수정 : 2010.05.27 04:03

 

크롤리 국무부 차관보 "한국과 관계단절은 그들의 이익에 가장 배치"

미 국무부는 25일 북한천안함 피격에 대한 한국정부의 대응조치발표 후, 남북관계의 단절을 선언한 것에 대해 강한 어조로 비판했다.

국무부의 필립 크롤리(Crowley·사진)공보담당 차관보는 이날 브리핑에서 "북한이 한국과 관계를 단절하는 것은 북한 주민들의 장기적 이익에 가장 부합하지 않는 조치"라고 말했다. 그는 "한국은 세계에서 가장 역동적인 경제를 가진 국가 중 하나지만, 북한은 심지어 그들 자신도 인정하는 실패한 경제를 가진 국가"라며 "북한은 자신들의 주민을 돌보고 먹여 살릴 능력이 없다"고 지적했다.

크롤리 차관보는 천안함 피격과 관련한 대북 대응조치에 대해서는 "매우 강력하고 단호한 국제적 대응이 돼야 한다"고 강조했다. 미국의 독자적 대북조치와 관련, "경제적 조치와 관련해 독자적으로 우리가 할 수 있는 일들이 있다"면서 추가 금융제재 등을 고려하고 있음을 시사했다.

크롤리 차관보는 이날 남북간의 군사적 충돌 가능성을 묻는 말에 대해서는 "북한의 추가적인 도발을 보고 싶지 않다"며 "북한 지도부에 가장 강력한 영향력을 행사하기 위해 무엇을 해야 하며 무엇을 할 수 있는지를 찾기 위해 동북아 지역의 파트너들과 긴밀히 협력하고 있다"고 말했다.

한편, 존 볼턴(Bolton) 전 유엔 주재 미국대사는 월스트리트저널 기고문을 통해 천안함을 공격한 것으로 드러난 북한을 테러지원국으로 재지정해야 한다고 주장했다. 그는 "천안함 침몰 사건이 테러 지원과 직접적 관련이 없다고 하더라도 부시 행정부의 가장 수치스러운 행동 가운데 하나였던 테러지원국 명단 삭제를 바로잡기 위해서라도 이 같은 선언을 해야 한다"고 밝혔다.

볼턴 전 대사는 이번 사태에 대해 미온적인 중국을 비판하며 "중국은 본능적으로 강경한 대북(對北) 제재 논의에 반대하겠지만, 오바마 행정부가 이란에 대한 새로운 제재를 얻어내기 위해 중국의 이런 입장을 그대로 받아들일 경우 중대한 실수가 될 것"이라고 말했다.

중문으로 이 기사 읽기중문으로 이 기사 읽기 영문으로 이 기사 읽기영문으로 이 기사 읽기 일문으로 이 기사 읽기일문으로 이 기사 읽기

[ 2010-05-28, 11:25 ] 조회수 : 3071
출처 : 미국 국무부