Remarks at a Press Availability in Seoul, Republic of Korea

AS DELIVERED

AMBASSADOR POWER: Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for being here. As you may know, I just came from my meeting with the prime minister of the Republic of Korea. I had the chance to underscore the critical importance of the alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea for the security of both countries, and as a foundation for peace and security throughout the region. I was also able to share some impressions from my visits today at the DMZ and to the Hanawon resettlement center. This was my first visit to the DMZ. It is one thing to read about or to see pictures of the DMZ, as so many of us have. It is another thing entirely to go right up to the line dividing what was once a single nation, and to see with your own eyes the stark contrast between freedom and repression, openness and isolation. Being there also brings into sharp focus the proximity of the threat that people here feel every time the DPRK carries out another nuclear test or yet another illicit ballistic missile launch.

We saw this dangerous behavior most recently exactly one month ago today, on September 9, when the DPRK conducted its second nuclear weapons test of the year; a year in which it also carried out an unprecedented number of ballistic missile launches. Following this most recent test, as you all know, the United States and our allies renewed our efforts at the UN Security Council to raise the cost on the DPRK for pursuing this dangerous course.

To be clear, this is why I have traveled to the region at this time. To consult directly with our close partners in the Republic of Korea and Japan on how we can effectively change the calculus of the DPRK regime. A major part of that is shaping a new UN Security Council resolution that will seek to impose new sanctions and tighten enforcement of those sanctions already in place.

While I am here meeting with senior officials in the government of the Republic of Korea, U.S. experts in New York – technical experts – are working in lockstep with our counterparts to find new ways to make it harder for the DPRK to obtain the materials and the hard currency that they have used to fuel the illicit nuclear weapons program.

While Security Council resolutions are one tool in our tool box, and a very important instrument of pressure, we are committed to using all the tools in our toolkit to address this serious threat including the diplomatic pressure that we are mobilizing around the world to convince other nations to isolate the regime. You see the impact of this diplomatic pressure in the growing number of governments expelling DPRK officials – officials who have abused their diplomatic privileges to advance the regime’s weapons program. Our tools also include the deterrence offered by the U.S. military, which I saw firsthand today at the DMZ in the American soldiers stationed side by side with ROK soldiers.

The message that we bring to the government and to the people of the Republic of Korea is clear: While the United States may be further away geographically from the Republic of Korea than you are, we take the threat that the DPRK poses just as seriously. We understand that this is not only a threat to the United States and the Republic of Korea, but to the very foundation of our international order, and we are determined to stand with you in addressing this threat. Our resolve is unwavering, our commitment is ironclad, and we are by your side.

Today I also had the opportunity to visit a place that shows a different kind of threat posed by the DPRK. Together with Republic of Korea government officials, I traveled to the Hanawon resettlement center where people who have managed to escape the DPRK learn to prepare for their new lives in the Republic of Korea. During my visit I met with a few of the recently arrived defectors and the experiences they shared were completely heartbreaking.

One young woman described how she had told nobody – not a soul, not even her parents – about her intention to flee North Korea. Yet even though her parents knew absolutely nothing of her plans for defection, local officials blamed them for her leaving and they have harassed her family until they, too, fled their village.

This young woman’s case is not an isolated one. Instead it reflects a pattern of widespread and systematic abuses perpetrated by the regime in the DPRK against its own people. Abuses that, as the comprehensive UN Commission of Inquiry report concluded, “does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.” These abuses include holding an estimated 80,000 to120,000 people in political prison camps where they are subjected to systematic torture, starvation, slave labor, rape, and forced abortions.

Now it may seem like these two issues – the way the DPRK threatens people beyond its borders with weapons of mass destruction and the way the regime terrorizes and abuses its own people – it may seem that these are unrelated. But they are rooted in a similar contempt for international standards and they are linked in a practical sense. Consider this: According to the World Health Organization, 25 percent of children in the DPRK suffer from stunted growth, owing to chronic malnutrition. One in four kids. And yet, the DPRK continues to pour all of its resources into its illicit weapons programs. This is a government that would rather grow its weapons programs than grow its own children.

When the UN Security Council held its first ever session on the issue of human rights in the DPRK in December 2014, the Republic of Korea’s UN representative, Ambassador Oh Joon, a dear friend of mine, said the following: “For South Koreans, the people of North Korea are not just anyone. Millions of South Koreans still have family members living in the north, even though we never hear from them. Even though by now, the pain of separation has become a cold fact of life, we know that they are there, just a few hundred kilometers away from where we live. We cannot listen to the stories of defectors without sharing their tears, without feeling we are there with them experiencing their tragedies.” That is what Ambassador Joon told the Council.

We Americans may not have millions of family members living in the DPRK as you do, but like you, we cannot hear their testimonies without feeling their suffering and believing that the abuses against them must stop. We believe that regardless of which side of the DMZ they live on, Koreans are entitled to live with dignity, with the same human rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities.

That is why we stand side by side with our South Korean allies. We stand side by side here in Seoul, we stand side by side at the DMZ, we stand side by side at the United Nations in New York, and we stand side by side wherever our shared security is on the line. And that is why we will continue to work with you toward the day when all Koreans will be able to live united in peace and prosperity. I thank you.

QUESTION: Two questions. First, Minister Yun ‎mentioned the possibility of expelling North Korea from the United Nations but they say that realistically this is an impossible option and I was curious to know what your opinion is on this issue. Second question, as Ambassador Oh Joon mentioned, North Korean human rights issue is indeed an important one, but as you know, North Korea is currently suffering from a severe flood in the northern part of the country and yet the South Korean government is not considering the provision of any type of aid at all. What do you think?

AMBASSADOR POWER: Thank you for both questions. On your first, I think it is very understandable what is motivating the kind of proposal that you described. The UN Charter enshrines the principle of fundamental freedoms and the principle and the commitment of UN Member States to uphold and preserve international peace and security. This is why, as one form of the pressure that we apply against the regime in the DPRK, we consistently invoke their obligations as Member States of the United Nations. We believe, as the United States, that being a Member State of the United Nations is a tremendous privilege for us. But we also believe that every Member State of the United Nations has a set of responsibilities and the DPRK regime is not living up to those responsibilities.

On the specific proposal, I would refer you to the government of the Republic of Korea. With regard to the flooding that has befallen some in North Korea, first of all, our hearts go out to those families that have been affected, those that have been displaced. I think, as you well know, the challenge of providing assistance to the DPRK is well known. International donors – whether Member States or organizations – have no confidence that money and assistance that is meant to help ordinary people who are suffering terribly – whether now of flooding or of grave malnutrition – that the assistance that is provided actually reaches those people. As you know, the United Nations has a number of programs within North Korea and I know they are doing what they can to be responsive to the needs of the people while also doing what they can to ensure the money that is given to actually reach the people is not simply used like most resources in the country to fuel the government’s nefarious weapons programs.

QUESTION: I’m wondering if you could you speak to why or what parts of 2270 specifically aren’t working to achieve the desired result that you all sought in this resolution.

AMBASSADOR POWER: First, let me say that, as you know, Resolution 2270 is the toughest and most robust sanctions resolution that the UN Security Council has passed in more than a generation. The resolution includes a requirement for the first time to inspect cargo going into North Korea. It shuts down banking channels. It bans all conventional weapons sales to the DPRK. And it bans outright or severely limits the export of minerals that we know – and the whole world knows – have been used to generate hard currency and resources that are then pumped into the illicit ballistic and nuclear weapons programs.

We always knew that a resolution this robust was going to take some time to be properly enforced across the board, and that, even once fully implemented, was going to take time to have its desired effects. I actually think the picture on implementation is mixed. We have seen some countries create new mechanisms to inspect cargo going into or coming from the DPRK. We have seen countries completely ending, terminating, engagement with the DPRK related to the export of coal. And we have seen countries in a wholly new way expelling DPRK diplomats that are using their diplomatic privileges basically to cover up for the work they are doing illicitly to advance the nuclear weapons program.

But the resolution contains some exemptions that were put in place because of our deep concern about the welfare of the citizens of the DPRK. And some of those exemptions, it appears, have been exploited to not bring about the kind of enforcement and implementation that is going to be necessary going forward. In the negotiation that we are currently in the midst on in the new resolution, we are hoping to address some of the shortcomings that we have seen. But fundamentally, no matter any resolution says, it is going to be up to the Member States of the United Nations, and particularly those Member States that have dealings with the DPRK, to fully enforce the resolution in letter and spirit. And one of the things we have deep cooperation with the Republic of Korea on is exerting diplomatic pressure on those countries that we think need to more to enforce 2270, and will inevitably have to do more once we have a new resolution on the books.

QUESTION: Since the fifth nuclear test was conducted, I know that a new resolution has been crafted. What is your greatest challenge in coming up with this new resolution and how are you trying to overcome that challenge?

AMBASSADOR POWER: My greatest challenge in any negotiation in the UN Security Council is that there are 14 other countries on the UN Security Council. So we need to bring about a resolution that is tough, that makes a material difference to the DPRK’s to ability to gain access to hard currency, to know-how, to technology. And we need to secure a resolution that has the support of other Council members including countries like China and the Russian Federation.

The Council is united already in condemning unanimously the test. And we are united already for a very long time in agreeing that the Korean Peninsula needs to be denuclearized. And the way that we overcome the challenge of what can be slightly different perspectives on how one achieves that goal is sustained technical discussions and outreach as well as very high-level political engagement to all the relevant stakeholders.

This is why President Obama telephoned President Park in the immediate wake of the latest nuclear test. It is also one of the topics that President Obama and President Xi discussed on the margins of the G-20. And it was a centerpiece of President Obama’s discussion with Premier Li just a couple of weeks ago at the UN General Assembly.

QUESTION: You were supposed to have a press availability up in the DMZ, but you moved it to this venue this afternoon. Was the reason to not provoke North Korea? And was there any change in the statement you announced here and were going to announce at the DMZ?

AMBASSADOR POWER: I am unaware of venue issues, so maybe that is something you want to follow up with my team on. I think our schedule was in flux because we are cramming a huge amount into just three days on the ground here.

QUESTION: You mentioned that the last resolution was just the toughest, most robust, that has happened, but since it has passed, North Koreas has arguably become stronger. And with the clock ticking on the Obama Administration, and with some of the candidates, Mr. Trump in particular, talking about lowering the commitment to the Koreasan how much leverage do you have now, and how do you overcome the challenges of passing a stronger resolution and implementing it, considering China’s opposition also to more binding measures?

AMBASSADOR POWER: First, I would say North Korea has not become stronger. A government lashing out, staging provocations, violating international law – doing that with increased frequency is not a sign of strength. That said, of course, with every test they do, they are refining their capabilities and we take that threat extremely seriously and it’s one of the reasons I have flown all this way to Japan and the Republic of Korea.

In terms of the timing and how it relates to presidential transition in the United States, I sense as of now, no abatement in other countries’ enthusiasm for engaging with the United States, with the Obama Administration. If anything we see a flurry of enthusiasm by a lot of different countries on a lot of different issues to see what we can get done together between now and January 20. We have worked for nearly eight years to build and to deepen a whole set of relationships and we are drawing on those relationships in our final months, both to try to close out progress on a range of issues, to mitigate suffering on a number of humanitarian crises and to ensure that the world that we hand over – or the world that greets the next President – is more stable and has within it the framework needed for progress. And we feel confident that we can get a strong resolution that responds to the recent nuclear test and see significant progress on designations and on implementation of that resolution in the coming weeks and months.

QUESTION: Two questions. These are very local questions. First, you mentioned how the technical experts in Iran are currently discussing ways to limit technology transfer to North Korea. As you know, North Korea used to receive its technology from Russia or the Syrian experts. I was wondering if there are any concrete discussions on ways to impose sanctions on that front?

The second question relates to human rights as well as nuclear tests. We are hearing information that people who live around the area of the nuclear site have been contaminated because of the nuclear tests. Do you or does the UN have any information with respect to this issue?

AMBASSADOR POWER: With respect to your first question, I am not going to get into the details of what we are pursuing or what we are pursuing, or what we are discussing, in the negotiations.‎

With respect to your second question, I don’t have any information, nor have I received any information from the United Nations. But when a country carries out a nuclear test, that is an extreme and very, very dangerous act. And it is a further reflection of a total lack of curiosity and lack of regard as to whether such effects would in fact ensue. So that is not surprising in light of the regime’s actions toward its own people on a daily basis, but it is nonetheless an additional feature of the nuclear test.

I thank you all very much.