U.S. keeping door open to dialogue with N. Korea: Stephens

SEOUL, July 12 (Yonhap) -- The following are excerpts from a Yonhap News Agency interview with U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Kathleen Stephens.

Q: How does the U.S. assess N. Korea's recent nuke test, and is there a possibility
that the U.S. will accept the North's possession of nuclear bombs?
A: Well, first in regard to the May 25th test, our technical experts are still
analyzing the situation. But our analysis is that on May 25th, there was a test near
Punggye-ri, that it had a force of several kilotons, but we'll continue to analyze
it. In terms of your second question, I mean, the answer is very simple. No. The
United States will not ??? accept the notion of North Korea possessing nuclear
weapons capability. And as you know, and as reaffirmed recently by the U.N. and the
Security Council is the ??? unanimous position of the international community as
expressed by the Security Council. We believe that the DPRK (North Korea) should
return to the NPT (non-proliferation treaty) and should abandon its nuclear weapons
program.

Q: Ambassador Philip Goldberg made a recent trip to China and Malaysia. Under
Secretary of Treasury Levey also visited Beijing and Hong Kong. Does the U.S. have
new evidence of North Korea's alleged counterfeiting or other illegal activities?
A: I might add to what you've mentioned that the United States has asked Ambassador
Philip Goldberg to lead the effort on the U.S. side to implement U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1874. And Ambassador Goldberg recently led a delegation to
Beijing and also to Kuala Lumpur and had some good discussion there. This is part of
our approach, which we've been very transparent about in the aftermath of North
Korea's provocative acts -- to consult very closely with our partners and neighbors
in the region, to take steps to implement the Security Council resolution, as well
as to look at further national steps that we might take. And at the same time, we
want to continue to keep the door open for a return to diplomacy, a return to
dialogue. So I think you will see this kind of multi-track activity continuing in a
very steady way in the coming days and weeks.

Q: North Korea has been refusing to rejoin the six-way talks. Many doubt the
efficacy of the talks. Do you think that the talks are still meaningful?
A: I do. And I would say it in two contexts. One, in the context of process. I think
over the last several years, the efforts of the parties to work together on a common
problem central to peace and stability in the region has been a process that has
developed, and we need to continue to build on that development. I think that we
have developed a habit of cooperation that we need to continue to strengthen. And
the other area is in the area of actual substance. The agreement that was reached in
September 2005 in the joint statement of principles remains in my mind -- and I
think in the mind of my government -- the best description of what we would like to
see as the end result, and we have not given up on that. Now we have suffered
setbacks, there is no question about that. And we may need to adjust both our
process and our negotiating approach. But I think we still have the right parties
involved, and I think we still have the right goals in mind.

Q: Can the U.S. show some flexibility in dealing with North Korea? For example,
having bilateral talks within the six-way framework?
A: Yes, and I think if you look at what Ambassador Stephen Bosworth has said, what
Secretary Clinton has said and others, yeah, I think there's an understanding that
we want to get results. We don't have a very rigid sense that something must be done
exactly one way or the other. But what we do insist on is that one, dialogue and
diplomacy is the best way to resolve this, and two, it does have to be on the
principle that at the end of the day, we want to see a denuclearized Korean
Peninsula.

Q: What if North Korea wants to hold bilateral talks with the U.S. outside of the
six-way format?
A: Well, what we'd like to see North Korea do is to cease and desist, stop the
provocative actions, and to demonstrate a readiness to return to the implementation
of the September 2005 Joint Statement of Principles. We believe that the other
parties in the six-party talks have very important interests in this process as
well, and I can't imagine a process that does not include the very important
interests of the Republic of Korea as well as other countries.

Q: What do you think of a proposal on five-party consultations without the
participation of North Korea?
A: Well, as I said a moment earlier, one of the tracks that we are working on now is
continuing consultations with others in the region, notably those within the
six-party framework. So we will continue to consult like that. We haven't really
taken a firm position on exactly how we should meet. We just continue, as you have
seen, to have meetings with our allies and our partners throughout the region as
people travel around.

Q: Do you have information on the whereabouts of the two U.S. journalists detained
in North Korea?
A: We have been working very closely with the Swedish ambassador in Pyongyang. As
you know, Sweden is the protecting power for the United States because we do not
have a diplomatic mission in Pyongyang. And he has been working very, very hard and
very steadily to not only obtain news about these two journalists, but also to see
them. And I believe he's seen them four times. The last time was on June 23, I
believe, which was about three weeks ago. He is also in constant or trying to be in
constant contact with the North Korean authorities, but he has seen them four times.
And he is asking to see them again. But basically the position of my government is
to continue to ask the North Korean authorities to release them with an amnesty.
They have gone through the court system, and we would like to see an amnesty and
their immediate release.

Q: Do you expect North Korea to change its position and release the reporters? Does
the U.S. have a plan to send a high-level envoy to negotiate their release?
A: I am not aware of any statement they've made that I've seen in the press, but I
hope they will listen to the appeals of our government that they treat this as a
humanitarian case. These are two women with families who very much want to see them
come home and we hope the North Korean authorities will see their way towards an
amnesty for them. At this moment all I can really say is that for us, the protection
of U.S. citizens abroad remains a very high priority, and we do want to make every
effort we can, but we hope that the North Koreans will bring amnesty to these two
individuals.

Q: What do you think about South Korea's push for expanding its civilian nuclear
program?
A: Well, to my knowledge, we have not received an official request from the Republic
of Korea on this issue. However, we certainly have a longstanding and continuing
tradition of very close cooperation and consultation on issues related to peaceful
civilian nuclear energy. And in fact, it's something that's mentioned in the joint
vision statement that our two presidents released just a couple, a few weeks ago.
But we have not been approached by the Korean government in this regard.
But I wouldn't even -- it's not even so much that we -- we do have kind of a
continual discussion about these things. And you know, the science changes on
these things as well, and that's why it's kind of a continual process of making
sure that we're well-coordinated, that we have a clear understanding -- as the
science changes -- of the way to go forward.

Q: South Korea apparently wants to have the right to enrich uranium, reprocess spent
fuel like Japan. What's your opinion?
A: I really think that it's a technical discussion that needs to be continued on the
basis of our close alliance, and on the basis of our clear understanding that
nuclear energy, the civilian nuclear energy program, is very important to the
Republic of Korea, so we need to have even deeper consultations and cooperation.

Q: Some conservatives in South Korea call for a delay in the transfer of OPCON,
which is slated for 2012. What's your view?
A: Well, you know because I've followed Korea for so many years, I know that
actually this discussion about OPCON and who should have operational control of
troops in peacetime and wartime has been around in our discussions for actually
several decades. And as you may recall, the operational control of ROK forces in
peacetime was transferred to the ROK in 1994. I think that it is a very natural and
appropriate step in the transformation of our joint alliance. Now, over the last few
years as this was discussed, as I prepared to come to Korea, I got the sense that,
speaking frankly, that underneath there was a sense that maybe the decision on OPCON
transfer went to the issue of U.S. commitment in Korea. I think that question has
pretty much disappeared because in fact, as I think it's been demonstrated, the U.S.
commitment to the Republic of Korea is as strong or stronger than ever.
So I think the question now has become, "Is this step in 2012 going to be the
right step at the right time to strengthen our alliance and to strengthen our
defensive posture?" Because I think the standard should be no less. The standard
should be, "Are we going to be stronger as an alliance in our defensive
capabilities, in our ability to work together through this?" not, "Is this going
to do no harm?" We should actually say, "Is it going to strengthen us?" And that
is the question that our militaries are looking at every time they take another
step towards the planning and implementation of OPCON transfer. So far I think
it's going very well. I think the progress we've made to date gives us great
confidence that we can indeed achieve this shared goal of operational control
transfer because it is the right thing for today's world, for today's
capabilities, and do it in a way that actually makes us more capable and
stronger, not less. I think what we need to concentrate on is continuing on the
path that we're on because I think that it's the right one towards the
operational control transfer in 2012.

Q: Does the U.S. have a plan to ask South Korea to dispatch troops to Afghanistan?
A: Well first of all, I mean, we do, the United States does very much appreciate the
kinds of contributions that Korea has made and continues to make around the world in
Iraq and Afghanistan and a variety of U.N. peacekeeping missions. Korea itself has
obviously very strong interests in the future stability and prosperity of not only
Afghanistan, but also Pakistan and the broader central Asian region. And when our
special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Mr. Richard Holbrooke, was here in
April, he had some very good discussions with various people in the Korean
government about those growing interests and the growing role that Korea is playing
in a variety of countries in Central Asia. And he was very clear that he very much
hopes that we can continue to look to the Republic of Korea -- both as an ally and
because of its own growing global interests -- to be helpful to the efforts for
greater stability and prosperity in that region. But he was also very clear ??? this
is really up to the Korean government, the Korean people, as to what they want that
to be. And that's very much the message that we've reinforced time and again. We
look forward to continuing to work with Korea on our joint goals in the region, but
we were not then and we are not now going to say that it has to take one form or
another. There are a lot of ways Korea has been and can continue to be very helpful.


Q: Do you think South Korea and the U.S. need to hold additional talks on their free
trade agreement?
A: What we have said is that we want to find a way forward towards ratification.
This is a very ambitious agreement that was reached two years ago, or more than two
years ago now I guess, by previous administrations of both our countries, and since
then we've had not only new administrations in both countries, but a worldwide
economic downturn and an historic crisis in the American auto industry. So we have
different factors out there now, but what has not changed is the sense in both the
United States and Korea that this agreement is extremely important both on economic
and strategic grounds.

Q: Nine months have passed since you became the U.S. ambassador to South Korea. How
is your work and life here?
A: Well, I'm delighted to be in Korea. And I think my expectations, my very high
expectations about returning to Korea for the third time to live and to work have
been exceeded by my nine months here. Of course it's a challenge and a pleasure to
come back to a country that I first came to so many years ago, and to every day
think about and reflect on the past and present and the future. So personally, it's
very rewarding, but also in a professional sense, when I first came here, I said I
felt that the moment was right to try to take the relationship to a new level. And
now, nine months later, I feel even more strongly that now is the right time to do
that, so it feels like a particular responsibility, but also a privilege, to be here
right now. But Korean life is great.