For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 8, 2004
Press Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on Nonproliferation
4:03 P.M. EDT
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good afternoon. Let me just start
off with a few words, and then I'd be happy to answer your questions.
The G8 leaders will be issuing an action plan on nonproliferation
tomorrow. This will be the most significant statement on weapons of
mass destruction that the G8 leaders have issued. It follows from the
first extended discussion of weapons of mass destruction at the
Kananaskis Summit, when the G8 leaders created the global partnership
against the spread of WMD and WMD-related materials.
Last year at Evian the leaders issued the first statement on
nonproliferation as such, including some significant comments on North
Korea and Iran. This year, the action plan will ratify a substantial
amount of progress on a number of initiatives that President Bush
announced in his February speech to the National Defense University.
We expect that the leaders will confirm the expansion of the activities
of the Proliferation Security Initiative, which was launched by
President Bush in May of last year.
Just last week in Krakow, Poland, the PSI countries agreed that
Russia should join the core group. This is a very substantial addition
to the PSI core group. With Canada's earlier addition, it now means
that all eight G8 countries are part of the core group. And at the
Krakow meeting, hosted by the Polish government, 62 countries were
present to endorse PSI and the statement of interdiction principles.
In addition, we expect that the leaders will endorse the continued
expansion of the global partnership that was created at Kananaskis.
You may recall this was originally known as 10 plus 10 over 10,
reflecting $10 billion from the United States over a 10-year period,
plus $10 billion from other countries to secure or eliminate weapons of
mass destruction and related materials in the states of the former
Tomorrow the leaders will announce that seven new countries have
joined the global partnership, those being Australia, New Zealand,
South Korea, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland and the Czech Republic. And
they will announce that the global partnership will coordinate
activities in other states where there have been programs of weapons of
mass destruction, such as the critically important programs to retrain
WMD scientists and technicians in Libya and Iraq, the point of that
being you don't want a nuclear weapons scientist to be hired off by
Iran or North Korea, you want to find gainful employment for him in his
The leaders will welcome the fact that the Security Council
recently unanimously adopted resolution 1540, which President Bush had
called for in his September speech to the General Assembly. This is a
resolution that calls on states to make WMD activity criminal under
their national laws, and to improve export control systems, as well as
providing support for PSIs. It encourages U.N. members to take
collective action against the international trafficking of weapons of
And finally, we expect and hope that the leaders will endorse
substantial progress toward the objective that President Bush set in
the February speech of closing loopholes in the Nuclear
Nonproliferation regime. One of the things that we've seen is that
under the guise of peaceful -- so-called peaceful nuclear programs,
many states around the world have acquired very sensitive technologies
that permit them, together with a clandestine weapons program, to draw
very close to having a nuclear weapons capability without ever
apparently violating the treaty. So one of the things that President
Bush called for -- it's a very significant step, very controversial,
has a lot of political and economic implications -- is to cut off the
transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology to any states that
don't currently have it.
And we expect what the G8 leaders will endorse tomorrow is a
one-year freeze on inaugurating any new initiatives to transfer such
technology to additional states, and set a one-year target to the next
G8 summit in the United Kingdom for the countries to come together on
deciding what the final rules will be. Now, that's not quite to the
point that the President had proposed, but it represents enormous
movement in the direction of very substantial tightening on transfer of
enrichment and reprocessing technology. It reflects, I think, the
overwhelming agreement of the G8 leaders, that the loopholes that
currently exist in the nonproliferation treat regime have to be
So we're very encouraged by this, as we are by the companion step
of the G8 leaders agreeing that tightening of the IAEA safeguards
agreements through the implementation, what we call the additional
protocol, now has to be a condition before all kinds of nuclear
technologies can be imported, even for a legitimate civil nuclear power
programs. This gives the IAEA and, therefore, all of its members more
visibility in the nuclear programs. It's something we think is very
significant. And that is -- hopefully will be endorsed by the leaders
And then, finally, the leaders, we hope, will endorse the
President's suggestion to create a special committee of the IAEA to
consider even further measures to tighten verification and safeguards
measures, and a group, we hope, will endorse the idea that countries
under investigation for violating their Nonproliferation Treaty
commitments should recuse themselves from any decisions by the IAEA
board in their own cases.
Finally, the -- and we've got a little chart here, I guess, I don't
know, I suppose a chart can be on background, too -- but it's a
comparison, a point-by-point comparison of the seven suggestions in the
President's February speech with how we hope and expect the leaders
will come out tomorrow, that I think will help show the very
substantial progress towards the President's goals that we will have
In addition, the leaders will carry on as they did at Evian,
talking about North Korea and Iran. We expect they will also talk
about Libya, which is a very important success story for the
Proliferation Security Initiative and for the idea that we're not
simply trying to contain the spread of weapons of mass destruction,
we're trying to roll back the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
And I don't doubt that they will talk about other issues, such as the
A.Q. Khan network, and some very important initiatives we have in the
area of bioterrorism, to take more concrete steps at the national and
international level to make all of our countries more secure against
So why don't I stop there, and I'd be pleased to answer any
questions you have. And if you could identify yourselves, I'd sure
Yes, sir, right here.
Q I just have two quick questions on the plans for the global
partnership. One is, I might be mistaken, but I thought the Czech
Republic was already a member as a donor country. And I know that
there had been discussion or proposals to expand the recipient
countries to other former soviet states besides Russia. Will there be
any talk or decision on that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The Czech Republic is a new
country this year. Six joined last year -- Sweden, Finland, Norway,
Poland, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. And the seven countries I
name are seven new ones, so there's a total of 21.
In terms of recipient countries, no additional countries are
formally admitted this year, but the United States and several other G8
members have long had programs in many of the other states of the
former Soviet Union, and, in fact, it was agreed at Kananaskis that our
programs in those countries count toward the $20 billion target. So
that won't be -- it won't be affected. In fact, if anything, I think
more countries are looking to expand their programs in the other states
of the former Soviet Union.
Q Thank you. Could you be more elaborate on what
-- especially the United States, expects from Russia's
participation in PSI? And don't you see contradiction, while the U.S.
has arduous talks with the Russians over Iran and suspects Russian
entities of proliferation, at the same time you invite Russia to join
into this initiative? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think on what we expect
from Russia, as with all core group countries, we expect strong
political support for the initiative. And I think that was, in part,
already reflected in Russian support for Security Council Resolution
1540. We'd like additional operational support from Russia in terms of
intelligence cooperation and cooperation among our militaries and law
enforcement assets and the actual interdiction of WMD shipments.
And I think, as well, the decision by the Russian Federation to
join the core group will send major political signals in other capitals
that have not yet signaled their support for the statement of
interdiction principles. Just geographically, Russia's joining cuts
off major land, air, and sea routes between proliferators in the Far
East and the Middle East, and I think that's extremely significant.
In terms of your second question, I think that, as we're seeing in
New York, hopefully, in a couple of hours, in terms of the adoption of
this resolution on Iraq, I think the issues that have divided many of
the G8 countries on Iraq are fast being left in the past. And I think
one of the things that was encouraging all the while, is that it did
not interfere in our cooperation on nonproliferation policy. I think
now with Iraq more and more a question of the past, we can enhance our
But one thing that I think we've seen over the past three years is
the countries of European Union, Russia, Japan, and others have already
been drawing closer to the very strong views that President Bush has
articulated about the importance of stemming the proliferation of WMD.
And I think the leaders will reaffirm what they said at Evian, that WMD
proliferation, together with terrorism, is the preeminent threat to the
national security of us all.
Q -- Iran, not Iraq.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm sorry, the -- I think the
leaders will -- I think that the leader statement tomorrow, hopefully,
will show that, in fact, they are united, unmistakably united in their
determination that Iran not achieve nuclear weapons. Now, there have
been a variety of disagreements about tactically how to achieve that,
and that's no secret to anybody. But what is unmistakably clear is
that there is no division among the G8 that a nuclear weapons-equipped
Iran would be unacceptable.
Yes, sir, down here.
Q On Iraq and the search for WMD, while this is somewhat of an
old story, would you comment on where that search remains? We are
always apprised that it continues. Do you still expect that something
will be found? And has the lack of finding affected the G8
nonproliferation talks? And could you comment on that, please, sir?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't think that the -- well,
number one, the work of the Iraq Survey Group continues. I really
don't have anything to add at this point, but their are forensic
investigation, their interviews, their reviews of files continues at
apace. I don't think the dispute has affected the gradual convergence
of positions, I believe legitimately, towards that of the United States
on proliferation issues. And, in fact, Iraq -- the current
circumstances in Iraq show, I think very graphically, something that's
come home to us in a significant way as part of our experiences growing
out of the Soviet Union, that part of the problem of proliferation, a
significant part, in fact, the hardest part, is not tubes for
centrifuges or plastic jugs of chemical agent; it's the problem of
intellectual capital. It's the knowledge that scientists and
technicians have about how to put a WMD program together.
And Iraq is a very good example. For years, Saddam kept together a
group of 1,000 nuclear weapons scientists and technicians that he
called his nuclear Mujahadeen. These were the people who had the
intellectual capability, with money, and free from U.N. sanctions,
which is what Saddam's objective was, to recreate his nuclear weapons
program. We've identified already 500 -- 400 to 500 of these
scientists that we want to try and retrain and redirect, so that they
can find legitimate work in Iraq, and not be hired off by another WMD
aspirant. And that really signals to us why this problem is so
difficult to resolve, because the intellectual capacity is something
that's a lot harder to restrict and detract than the physical evidence
of weapons programs.
Q On North Korea, I was wondering if there was an appraisal by
the G8 of how they feel the six-party talks are going. The progress
has been very slow. Is there any idea if in the next round there's not
any progress, might we be looking at sending it to the United Nations
or trying to send it to the United Nations?
And then, also on the PSI, is there more of an initiative to try to
contain states like North Korea, with the PSI? There's been fairly
good success so far. Was there any talk on how to take a step further
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think on Korea, I don't
think there's going to be any disagreement among the G8 that we
continue to believe there has to be complete, verifiable and
irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs.
I think that's significant. I think that continues to show important
unity that North Korea is not going to be able to break, despite one
effort or another.
The Proliferation Security Initiative I think has played a major
role and will continue to play a major role, given North Korea's long
history of proliferation activities. It is the largest proliferator of
ballistic missile technology in the world, and we fear very much that a
country that depends on the hard currency it earns from the sales of
weapons of mass destruction, drugs, illegal gambling activities in
Japan, would be prepared to sell weapons grade uranium or plutonium or
complete weapons, if it could, to other rogue states or to terrorist
groups to earn additional hard currency.
So PSI we think has been playing and should continue to play a
major role in not only in stopping North Korea from acquiring the
critical materials and technology it needs to advance its own nuclear
weapons program, but from financing that program through the sales of
other things, like ballistic missiles and other weapons systems.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, they're going to be
discussing it tomorrow, and I think that's been a view that we've had
for quite some time, that if the six-party talks don't make progress,
the Security Council is obviously the body charged with threats to
international peace and security, the IAEA has already referred it
there. For the moment, we're continuing to pursue, as the President
has directed, the six-party talks. And the next round will take place
in Beijing at the end of the month. We'll see how it goes.
Q I'm astonished on the argument that you used about the
scientists in Iraq. You said that Saddam Hussein put together hundreds
of scientists that are capable to build a weapon of mass destruction.
Which country in the world has not this accumulation of scientists,
because any country can be a threat?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think the issue is not
whether a country has a lot of nuclear physicists, the country is
whether a country has scientists and technicians who know how to build
uranium enrichment systems, who know how to reprocess plutonium, who
have the technical capabilities to go from raw uranium to weapons grade
uranium or plutonium. And thankfully, not all countries have that
capability. And what we want to try and do through a variety of means,
such as those President Bush has proposed, is make sure that that
number doesn't get any larger.
Q Following up on the question about North Korea, Prime Minister
Koizumi the other day said that he has an understanding with the great
leader that he will give up his weapons of mass destruction. Do you
all see that as any change, any breakthrough? Is so, will that figure
into the talks this week here?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, certainly we remain hopeful
that North Korea will accept that it has to dismantle its nuclear
weapons program. That's the absolute bottom line for us, for Japan and
for our other partners in the negotiation. And so far, North Korea in
the negotiations has not shown the slightest willingness to do that.
Now it's possible in the meetings at the end of the month that we'll
see a changed position. We're prepared to take advantage of that, to
move these negotiations ahead. The President has been very clear he
wants to see a peaceful diplomatic resolution to the outcome, and
that's why we're prepared for the six-party talks to proceed at the end
of the month.
Q There's no change in our position vis-a-vis what Mr. Koizumi
said the other day?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think certainly the
President will receive this information. It's important, it's
important that we hear from the Prime Minister on the outcome of his
trip. But the North Koreans themselves, if what the dear leader has
said is accurate, now we need for them to follow up in the six-party
talks, and we'll see the answer to that in a couple of weeks.
Q You mentioned that Australia was now a member of the new
global partnership on nonproliferation. What specific contribution do
you see countries like Australia making? Is it intelligence
capability, is it retraining, or is it providing scientific experts?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, on the global partnership,
what we're really looking for are two things: one, additional
resources to bring to bear in a prudent and effective manner in the
states of the Soviet Union, but also the growing political commitment
that the enlargement of the global partnership represents. And I would
expect that Australia and some of the other new members will probably
start with relatively modest contributions. We understand that, that
they won't want to duplicate work that's already been done. And we,
and I know the other G8 members, are fully prepared to work with them.
We've had informal meetings with many of these new members already.
But their participation, I think is very important in showing to
the states of the former Soviet Union we are determined that these WMD
materials are either going to be destroyed or secured, and that the
growing number of countries participating I think underlines how
important that we see this work. And I think it underlines the
potential for these sorts of programs in other countries -- as I
mentioned, Libya and Iraq -- that are also prepared to give up the
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
Q Of the $20 billion pledged at Kananaskis, how much has
actually been spent on concrete projects, besides the bilateral
American-Russian project which are underway? And it is also correct
your report already said in April that of the $20 billion, you're still
missing $3 billion to $4 billion?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We have posted on the global
partnership website, and I think on the Sea Island website the report
to the G8 leaders from the global partnership working group that has a
lot of specifics on a country by country basis as to what's actually
being spent and how the programs are proceeding. Some of the countries
that have just begun new programs, of course have not yet begun to
spend very much. But we expect today or tomorrow, for example, Canada
and Russia will announce they've signed their bilateral agreement,
their framework agreement that allows the very substantial Canadian
pledge of roughly equivalent to $750 million American dollars to begin
to be expended.
And I think that that is a -- that is something that -- the
commitments occur at the beginning, and the expenditures of the money
flow a little bit later. In terms of the current amount toward the 10
plus 10 -- the original 10 plus 10 target of $20 billion, depending on
what today's exchange rate turns out to be, we're somewhere just a
little bit short of $17 billion U.S.
So there are some of the G7 -- the original G7 partners -- we're
looking for additional contributions from. The European Commission has
indicated it's going to have a very substantial addition by the end of
this year. They're not quite ready to announce it, so I don't want to
preempt them, but we're looking forward to that. And we are drawing
closer to that target. That remains, for us, a very important part of
Q You mentioned that more or less the G8 are unified regarding
Iran, at certain point. What is their attitude toward Syria and
Libya. And in related to this question, the second part of the
question, how Middle Eastern countries are cooperative, and if they are
cooperative with the PSI regarding this Khan network and others?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, on Libya, I think there will
be a recognition that Libya's decision to foreswear weapons of mass
destruction is an important step forward. We've believed for some time
it was an important victory for the Proliferation Security Initiative
because the interdiction of the ship, the BBC China, which was carrying
uranium centrifuge equipment to Libya, and was diverted to Italy, when
that happened, we think that the government of Libya came to the
realization that we knew a lot more about their nuclear weapons program
than they thought, and that at that point, there wasn't any further
utility in trying to conceal it. And so that -- that is exactly the
kind of paradigm of a deterrent impact of an interdiction having that
we think PSI can provide.
I think in terms of other cooperation with PSI activities, that
we've had very good discussions with a number of countries in the
Middle Eastern region, the broader Middle Eastern region, and we have
also appealed to some of those countries over the past year that have
had -- have purchased military equipment from North Korea in the past,
not to do so in the future, to supply their legitimate defense needs
from other sources so that they're not providing North Korea with that
hard currency that I mentioned before that's so critical to the North
Koreans' ability to continue their nuclear weapons program.
The leaders are going to be discussing a variety of regional
issues, and, you know, Syria -- it is entirely possible that would come
Q Thank you. You said a little while ago that so far, North
Korean leadership has shown not the slightest willingness to change its
aspirations on nuclear -- nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Koizumi
apparently saw some change between September and May, his two visits to
Pyongyang, saw some movement, at least some perceived movement on the
part of the North Korean leadership. And we were told earlier that he
shared that view with the President in the bilat today.
Do you think the Prime Minister is misreading the signals out of
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I'm sure he's accurately
reporting what he saw. What I said a moment ago in response to an
earlier question was now we have to see whether the North Koreans
follow through on that in Beijing in the next round of six-party
North Korea is a very successful propagandist, and it -- it has
shifted its position on critical issues in this matter before. It, for
example, admitted at one point that it had a uranium enrichment
program, and then denied it. So tracking the North Koreans and the
consistency of their statements over time is something that tells you a
lot about the way they bargain and the way they behave.
We're prepared to go ahead with these talks. We want a peaceful
diplomatic solution. We're going to pursue it vigorously. The ball is
in North Korea's court. On that, there is no question, either.
Okay, well, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
END 4:32 P.M. EDT