Preview of the Upcoming Meeting Between U.S. President George W. Bush and President Roh Moo-Hyun of the Republic of Korea

MODERATOR: We have our Senior Administration Official here to give you a scenesetter on tomorrow's visit of the Prime Minister -- excuse me, the President of Korea. He'll open with a brief statement, then be happy to take your questions. We have about 30 minutes to go through this, so if we can make the questions concise we'll get through more questions. Thank you.

Just a reminder. This is on background to a Senior Administration Official. Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Great, thank you. Well, as you all are aware, President Roh will arrive shortly at Andrews Air Force Base. We believe we have a very nice visit planned for him. He will be met at Andrews Air Force Base by representation from the U.S. Government as well as from the Korean-American community here in the Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia area. He will then go to Blair House where he will stay for two nights and will be welcomed there by our protocol people at Blair House.

Tomorrow he'll have a full schedule of events that will begin for the most part, the substantive part, with a meeting with the Secretary of State at 11:30. After that meeting he will then go to the Chamber of Commerce and do a luncheon meeting there with leaders there. Following that he will go to Congress and meet with a group, I think, of about 10 to 12 Hill leaders. And then following that event he will go to the Korean War Memorial and will do a very nice wreath-laying ceremony at the memorial. And then we'll finish the day with a meeting back at Blair House with Secretary Paulson, Secretary of Treasury Paulson.

So that will be basically the schedule for Wednesday. Thursday will be his White House day. It will start -- the day actually starts with Mrs. Kwon, or Mrs. Roh. The First Lady will host a coffee in the private residence of the White House for Mrs. Roh and that will be, again a very nice event. She'll be received in the South Portico, which is a very nice event, and coffee in the Yellow Oval Room.

President Roh will then come over from Blair House for his meeting. There will be a restricted meeting in the Oval Office for about an hour, followed by a working lunch for about one hour.

Following that meeting, I believe that President Roh will host a meeting at Blair House for a group of opinion makers, experts in the area on Korea. I'm not sure of the size of that grouping. You'd probably all have a better idea than I do. And then he will depart for Seoul via San Francisco, and in San Francisco he has a separate schedule there that I believe includes another meeting with people outside the government, sort of an opinion makers sort of meeting, and then will return to Seoul.

As you all know, he's been on a very long trip. He's been -- he's coming directly from Europe where he was in Greece, Romania and I believe Finland for the ASEM meetings, Asia-Europe meetings. So it's a long trip for him and we hope that he'll have a chance to both relax and have good discussions while he's here.

As you know, this is the sixth meeting between the two leaders. The last meeting was in Gyeongju, Korea in November, prior to APEC -- the last bilateral meeting between the two leaders.

As you can imagine, they'll discuss a variety of issues. Most certainly they'll discuss the alliance and here I think they will discuss how strong the alliance is based on common values, as they stated in Gyeongju last November, this alliance is important not only because it stands against threats but also because it stands for common values. And there have been many, many achievements in this alliance during the presidencies of these two leaders, whether you're talking about commitments in Iraq, the global war on terror, USFK realignment, reducing troop levels, base relocation. There are a lot of good things that one can point to in terms of the alliance.

In this vein, another issue you can imagine that they will discuss that will also be important in terms of moving the relationship forward is the FTA talks. And here I think both leaders will want to discuss how to move forward the relationship even further based on a successful conclusion of these talks.

Of course the two leaders will discuss North Korea. Both leaders, as you know, are very committed to the six-party talks and a peaceful, multilateral, diplomatic solution. I think both leaders remain committed in spite of the fact that we are nearly one year since the joint statement and the North remains intransigent. And I think that the two leaders will probably discuss how we can bring the North back to talks and how we can bring them back to talks having made the decision to fulfill their denuclearization pledges in the joint statement.

So we're looking forward to this visit. As you know, the Presidents, the two Presidents, have a continuing dialogue. They talk on a fairly regular basis. They met last June. They met last November. So we're happy to host this meeting.

And I'd be happy with that to take a few questions.

MODERATOR: Please state your name and organization and wait for the mike. Yes, ma'am. Wait for the mike, please.

QUESTION: Does the United States still believe that the six-party talks is alive? I think you mentioned that President Roh and President Bush are going to talk about possible way to bring North Korea back to the six-party talks table. But at the same time, there were reports that the United States has given up the idea of bringing in that -- bringing North Korea back to the table. What is the position of the White House on this subject?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Be happy to answer that question. I'm sorry, where are you from? What was the --

QUESTION: Oh, sorry. Jin Sook Lee, MBC South Korea.

QUESTION: Dong Min Lee, Yonhap News Agency. This war time control command issue, is that on the agenda at the summit or in separate meetings between relevant officials?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It -- I know what a big issue this is becoming -- this has been and has become even more recently in South Korea. You know, it's certainly conceivable that the two leaders could talk about this issue just because it's probably foremost on the minds particularly the South Korean President given the domestic situation in Korea.

As you know, we have been working with the Koreans on a roadmap about how to do this that takes into account the security situation and U.S.-ROK military capabilities. If this were to ever happen, it would be a real success in the alliance in the sense that it would really show a relationship that is evolving, maturing and one that still remains fully grounded in a firm U.S. defense commitment to the Republic of Korea.

QUESTION: Mike Levallee, Tokyo Broadcasting System. I know you said that the U.S. is committed to the Six-Party Talks and you're ready and waiting for North Korea to come back to the table. But there have been a lot of reports over the past week or so that the U.S. is ready to announce a new round of financial actions against North Korea. This is the reason why North Korea is saying they're not coming back to the talks because of the first set of financial actions that were put into place. Don't you think that if they do announce any new financial actions it sends them mixed signals about your commitment to the talks, and do you have anything to say about a new set of financial actions that may be announced?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Mike, I don't really have anything to say about a new set of financial actions that are going to be announced. I can say that, again, we remain fully committed to the Six-Party Talks. The North Koreans have given many reasons for why they don't want to come back to the talks, and I cannot go through the list right now, but there are quite a number of reasons that they don’t want to come back to the talks.

I think the issue here is less about what we have done or are doing, and the issue really is has the North made a strategic decision. I think the five parties laid out a very clear strategic choice for North Korea in the joint statement. And to all of our disappointment, the absence of any effort on their part to come back to the Six-Party Talks shows that they have not yet made the strategic decision.

With regard to U.S. actions that have been taken, you know, it's very clear -- the President has stated very clearly that it's his obligation to protect the American people and the U.S. and international financial systems against any sort of illicit activities and, you know, he will continue to do so.

QUESTION: Kiyon with the Segye Times. We heard that there is a no press conference -- joint press conference or joint statement after the summits. Can you tell me why? And (inaudible) one more. President Roh is going to meet Secretary of Treasury. Is it related to additional financial solution on North Korea?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: With regard to your first question, there is no joint statement for this meeting. There -- I think that's largely because we had a big joint statement only a few months ago which I personally negotiated and really makes me wonder if anybody reads these things, because nobody seems to remember the Gyeongju joint statement which we worked way hard on.

We thought that was a very important statement that laid out very clearly a framework for both the North Korea issue, the alliance issue, economic relations, everything. And you know, we just didn’t think it was worth putting out another statement when that sort of stands as the definitive statement. And you know, we kind of -- you know, we all remember the most recent document was produced. So if we produce another one that basically says the same thing as the Gyeongju statement but in like a paragraph, you're not going to remember the Gyeongju statement. So the absence of a joint statement is merely a pointer for you to go back to the Gyeongju statement which was what we considered an important joint statement.

With regard to a press conference, I know there's been some confusion about this. My understanding is that after the two leaders meet there will be an opportunity for an availability of the two leaders to the press, basically what we call a pool at the bottom -- a press pool at the bottom where there may be some statements that are made by both sides. This is normally the way we do things with this sort of visit. There's no significance attached to the fact that we don't have a joint statement and never planned on it and don't have a I guess what you would call a formal press conference. It's just the way we've decided to do it for this visit so…

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, on Treasury Department, yeah. I think that's a question you'd be better off asking the South Korean side about. You know, most leaders when they come and they're given the courtesy of staying at Blair House are allowed to use Blair House to host meetings, various officials that they would like to meet. The South Korean side has expressed an interest in meeting with Secretary Rice and Secretary Paulsen I think in no small part because Secretary Paulsen is one of the newest members of the Cabinet, and we thought that was fine, that was a great idea.

QUESTION: Yongbom Heo for Chosun Ilbo. Following up your answer about the Treasury Department Secretary meeting, you mentioned that South Korea has -- you implied that South Korea has started to first talk on the meeting with the Secretary; is that correct? Who suggested that meeting first?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I can't remember frankly. I mean our meeting with him was on the 14th because of his travel schedule. He arrived on the 12^th; he had the 13th free. I can't remember who suggested to whom the idea of a Paulsen meeting. But I mean I wouldn't attach a whole lot of significance to that.

QUESTION: Ryan Kim, Dong-A Daily News, South Korea. Clearly President Roh in Finland demonstrated the difference in evaluating the intentions of North Korean missile launches. He said it's rather a political one than a military one. So given that difference between two Presidents in assessing the North Korean missile threat and do you expect in this summit meeting they will come to a same conclusion about their missiles and their -- the follow-up actions that should be taken together by both countries?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The statements that you're referring to are the statements made when?

QUESTION: In Finland while President Roh is visiting Finland.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, in Helsinki?

QUESTION: In Helsinki, yes.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I'm not going to comment on the -- you know, a statement that President Roh made. With regard to missiles with UMO, I think we believe that the July 4-5 missile tests were a real threat and a real provocation. The South Korean Government believes that they were a real threat and a real provocation. In fact, all members of the UN Security Council believe that they were a real threat and a real provocation, hence, the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 1695 condemning North Korea for this. The South Korean Government, after the passing of UNCR 1695, was fully in support of it. So I think -- I don't think there's any difference of opinion with regard to the concern that was created by these July 4 and 5 missile tests.

MODERATOR: Yes, ma'am, in the back.

QUESTION: Hi, Stephanie Ho with Voice of America. I just wanted to ask how far apart are the South Koreans and the United States in terms of tactics on negotiating over North Korea's nuclear program from now in the future? How close, how far apart are they? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: About this close, this far apart. About this close, this far apart. I don't know. I mean I think that, you know, we have been engaged in a consultation process with the South Koreans and with other members of the Six-Party Talks about what's the best way to try to get the North to come back to talks.

We’ve been doing this in the run-up to this visit. We will continue to do it in the aftermath of this visit. And I think everybody knows what we want, we want them back at the talks having made the decision to implement the pledges that they have made in the past.

With regard to tactics, I mean that's something that we have to discuss. I have a view on it. My counterpart on the South Korean Embassy has a view on it. So we've got to get together and we've got to just figure out what works best not just for us but works well for the other members of the Six-Party Talks also. So, you know, characterizing how far apart we are, this far apart, this far apart, I mean it depends on what specific issue that you're talking about.

QUESTION: Hyung Choi, Munhwa Daily, South Korea. Regarding the wartime command or transfer issue, as you may know, both countries have a different timetable. The United States -- Secretary Rumsfeld said that they want to 2009 -- would be ending in 2009 and South Korea preferred it would be 2012. So do you think if there is some compromise or some discussion about this between two Presidents or what two (inaudible) officials this summit?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Of course, you know, I'm aware that there have been various dates, various aspirational timelines that have been offered on this. You know, I think that in the end that's going to be something that will be discussed the military officials, by the commanders on the ground and, you know, eventually they'll come to some sort of agreement. I think in terms of the meeting between the two leaders, I don't anticipate any specific discussion on these sorts of issues.

I think here -- I know this is a hugely controversial issue in Korea right now. And you know, again, no decisions have been made. I mean this is something that the Department of Defense and the Ministry of National Defense will work out and there will be a meeting in October in which these sorts of issues will be discussed. But one thing that's very certain is as we look to evolve or transition the alliance, everybody should understand very clearly the United States security commitment to the Republic of Korea under any scenario remains rock solid, and that will always be the case.

MODERATOR: All the way in the back.

QUESTION: Jenny Park with USA Journal. (Inaudible) the Secretary Christopher here has proposed at United Nations yesterday to hold multilateral talks. Does that mean the multilateral talks is to replace already existing Six-Party Talks?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You're talking about the proposal to hold multilateral talks on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York?

QUESTION: Yes, that's correct.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, this is not a proposal in any way or means or fashion to replace Six-Party Talks. This is not a new institution to replace Six-Party Talks. As many of you I'm sure are aware, Secretary Rice held what we call a 5+5 meeting of this nature in KL, Kuala Lumpur, during the ASEAN regional forum meeting. And she thought it was a good discussion, and we thought it might be nice since there are going to be a lot of people in New York for UNGA to hold another such meeting.

But again, we think the Six-Party Talks are the key forum in which to resolve the nuclear issue. We remain committed to it as do the other members of the Six-Party Talks. And this other discussion forum is just an additional discussion forum, it's not meant to replace the Six-Party.