20 July 2003
Question and Answer Session
Question
I would like to ask our Prime Minister, you say it is extremely important to deal with an extremely dangerous situation with North Korea, and yet when you talk about it you don’t have the urgency, the determination, or the menace that you did when you used to talk about Iraq. What accounts for the difference, and why on one occasion do you threaten the ultimate sanction on the other, there is no talk of military action?
Prime Minister
Well I hope my being here, and indeed making this tour of the countries in the region, gives you a sense of the urgency I feel about this particular issue. And one of the reasons I was so keen to come and speak to President Roh about it is precisely because I don’t think this issue can be avoided. Why is it different from Iraq? Well there is not the history of United Nations resolutions of the use of weapons of mass destruction that there was with Saddam. But let’s not be in any doubt at all, this issue does have to be dealt with. There is a possibility of dealing with it, however, and let me outline how I could see this developing. What we have to do is to engage in dialogue. That dialogue should be multilateral, it should involve in the first instance the United States and China and North Korea, but then that has to be supplemented with the influence and participation of Japan and South Korea so that the whole of the region is giving a very strong message to North Korea. It is not acceptable to continue this nuclear weapons programme, it is not acceptable to continue exporting nuclear technology, proliferating it around the world, but if they are prepared to step back from those activities then the international community is there and prepared to help them make a transition, and change and open up their country in the way that they say that they want to do. So the choice is very much theirs. And the reason that we are talking in a different way about this issue is because there isn’t the same history, but I can assure you there is the same sense of urgency about resolving it.
Question
I am afraid this is a question for the Prime Minister on the case of Dr Kelly. Yesterday you called for restraint by the media and politicians, yet senior Labour figures are today attacking and condemning the BBC. Do you call on them to stop? And this morning you said that you believed you knew the facts in this case. Are you telling the country you believe you know what happened and you don’t think the government has done anything wrong?
Prime Minister
First of all, as I said yesterday, I do think this is a time for respect and restraint, not for recrimination of any sort. And in addition I would say that of course there are things that I will talk about to the inquiry, as will others. But I think the right and proper process is that I speak to the judge who is head of the inquiry in the way that other people will, that he is allowed to get on with his job to establish the facts, and then to give those facts and his judgments on them. And I think that is the best way to proceed after what has been a terrible, terrible tragedy. And I think people want and expect ourselves as politicians, I think yourselves as the media reporting this, to show that respect and restraint because of what has happened and to recognise that there is now a proper process that can take place in a proper way, where someone wholly independent will look at the facts, will investigate them and will then make the judgment. And then after those judgements are published, then of course we can all discuss what the results of those judgments are, and I think that is the right way to proceed.
Question
My question goes again to Prime Minister, and I will not ask you about baseball game this time. And it is my privilege to have you here. But on the matter of the Korean Peninsular, please make it straightforward and … when answering. There are many unknown things in Korea which Korean people deserve to know I think. Allow me to ask you a question in Korean. Mr Prime Minister, you have said in January that under certain conditions North Korea would be your next challenge after Iraq. I would like to know, after six months, if you still think so, and especially since you recently met with President Bush of the United States, and Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan, I would like to know whether you still harbour those thoughts? And in Japan you mentioned to Prime Minister Koizumi that North Korea is a "real threat", and a few days ago the New York Times ran an article saying that they had found a second nuclear site in North Korea, and I would like to know if these two are related in any way? In other words, I would like to know if you and President Bush, or Prime Minister Koizumi, how you all regard the situation in North Korea, for example how serious do you think the situation is in North Korea? And you have expressed your hopes for the multilateral talks, but if such talks do not materialise, what kind of consequences do you foresee? Do you foresee a consequence that only history will be able to judge? And my second question is this. The Korean government is aiming at realising a $2,000 per capita income as its new primary agenda, and for this many point out that the improvement of labour management relationship is essential. And there are some ongoing debates about whether Korea should follow the European model or the American model, and from the United Kingdom’s perspective, who have experienced and wisely overcome the so-called British disease, do you have any words of advice for Korea? And as a very active business partner for Korea, what kind of advice do you have to offer for Korea?
Prime Minister
I think on the first part, let me just say this to you. The articles that you discussed aren’t connected in any way. When I spoke back in January of North Korea as a challenge, I meant that then and I mean it now, in the sense that the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and unstable states proliferating such weapons, is a challenge for the whole of the international community, and North Korea is one part of that situation. I think the position is really very clear, and I am not standing here with any desire to threaten or be aggressive at all. I am simply saying that this issue of North Korea and its nuclear weapons programme, and the export of nuclear technology, has to be dealt with. But it can be dealt with, and should be dealt with, through peaceful dialogue, in the way that we have been describing earlier. And if that happens then the possibility exists not just for this region to be a safer place, but also for North Korea to make progress in a proper and orderly way. In relation to the latter part of your question, European models or American models, I think probably the best way for Korea to adopt is the Korean way and I think you should draw on the best practice of both. And if I can offer you just this one general sense, I think the way that the President is approaching this situation is the right one, which is to say that we need social solidarity, but we also need to have an adaptable and flexible and highly skilled workforce for the challenges of the 21st century. And other than that, I think I should leave the policies of Korea up to him.
delicious
digg
facebook
