get back to you. the question, based on a legal determination as to whether a given country has provided support for acts of international terrorism. we don't like many of those things north korea is doing, has done, and we will object to those and we will continue to sanction those is appropriate under u.s. law. >> thank you for bringing up the law because that threshold was met by north korea. the obama administration admits nothing ever changed, this was only change as an enticement, not because they ceased any of the activities. the legal threshold for being on the state sponsor of terrorism was that. they have been on the list since 1988 and there has never been any reason to take them off from a legal perspective. it was a diplomatic move to take them off.

i hope we don't use that as an excuse not to move on this. i will yield to your research on the issue. i am looking as a way to appear more serious than rhetoric. what they're doing is a danger to the whole world. thank you for being with us. i will yield back. >> i will recognize senator f n feingo feingold. >> i am very pleased that this hearing is being held. it has been awhile since the committee explore this issue, and one that we agree is one of the greatest challenges to our national security. although we made some initial headway at the last of the last administration, we have not

found a lasting solution. the korean peninsula continues to deteriorate. the united states needs to take a central role in determining how to engage peon yang and send a message, north korea cannot use illicit weapons programs, nor can it arrest american citizens on trumped up charges and fined them guilty in a closed before trial. these will invite further isolation, greater hardship for the north korean people and continued rejection by the international community. president obama is seeking to engage meaningfully on this issue ended restoration is working with many of our friends and allies in the region to craft a strong multilateral response. the stakes are too high for and uncoordinated policy. we must make clear that violation of international law and basic human rights have

serious consequences. i believe north korea continues to be a critical threat to our national security and the security of friends and allies in the region. we have to prioritize this issue as long as north korea continues these provocative and dangerous actions. you recently quoted as saying, quote, is not useful to persuade north koreans to do what they don't want to do, they will see that having dialogue is in their interest, how do we drive negotiations forward in a way that is appealing to gone yea without waiting for the north koreans to rejoin the talks when they might be continuing to produce nuclear weapons? >> our best hope of making progress is to work jointly with the major countries of the region and our principal allies in the region, this is not a unilateral american effort. through the frequent

consultation with other parties, we have made multilateral action this centerpiece of what we are trying to do with the north koreans. as for how one makes progress over time, i would counsel patience and perseverance and i think we have to remain steady, we have to continue to indicate that some of the things they're doing a dangerous and unacceptable to us, and we have to be prepared to respond as we are now responding to the un security council resolution, through bilateral sanctions and consultations with our partners in the region. we have to be prepared to continue to indicate that for us, engagement, dialogue and diplomacy remained the only real way to solve this problem. that does not mean you act u.s.

in everything they want. but if we remain patient, and persevere in our policy, the chances of eventual progress are good. >> there have been numerous press reports that kim jong il has selected his son to be his successor and analysts suggest the recent missile tests are part of an effort to ensure a smooth transition of power to his preferred air. our negotiations limited while kim jong il remains in power and what impact do you think an impending transition of power would have gone their north korean development and participate in negotiations if kim jong il's yoda sun has been selected? would you think it might mean for a policy toward north korea? >> there has been no formal designation of anyone as kim

jong il's air. this has been speculation in the press which may not prove to be founded. in response to your questions, someone who was quoted earlier by the chairman, secretary bill perry when he was secretary of defense advised we should deal with north korea as if it is, not as we would wish it to be. regardless who is in power, who is the president, we have to deal with north korea on the basis of what it does, not what we think would be a likely alternative. >> the united nations draft resolution expanding multilateral sanctions, i recognize you are probably able to share very little of that because it is an ongoing discussion but i am interested in what specific mechanisms will

be used to enforce new and existing sanctions. i raised this concern because the un security council resolution which passed in 2006 appeared to be a strong multilateral tool that banned atomic explosions and long-range missile launches, imposed limited financial sanctions. but the measures have been widely ignored, rendering the multilateral effort to flow. what steps are we taking to ensure this resolution does not have the same fate? >> one of the things that would be provided by this new resolution assuming it is adopted, is the sanctions committee will have an enhanced mandate to focus on compliance, investigations and outrage and a panel of experts would be

established as under other sanction regime is to support the committee's effort to monitor implementation. is obvious that for the u.s. a position of urging all you and members to comply fully with this new resolution will be a very important part of our response to what north korea is doing. sanctions resolutions are useful and important largely to the extent to which they are implemented. i very much believe we will push to ensure that other countries implement these resolutions as fully as we do. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. ambassador, for being here, you have your work cut out for you. in your testimony, you mention

your findings on your recent trip includes that china shares a deep concern about north korea's recent actions and a strong commitment to achieve denuclearization. there is a widely held view, mr. ambassador, that if china really had to resolve to squeeze their north korean neighbor on the issue of denuclearization, they could accomplish this in a way that no other country on the globe can do. did you find their concern to be deeper, and their commitment to be stronger than before the missile tests and a nuclear test, and would you speak to this widely held view that china

could accomplish this if they were of a mind to? >> it is fair to say that we found china very concerned about what north korea has done and is doing in the nuclear field and in the area of missile technology. they recognize perhaps more than anyone else that these moves by north korea can have a deleterious effect on security arrangements throughout northeast asia and the korean peninsula and they realize it is not in their interests. i can't speak for the government of china, only to say that our impression as we came away from these intensive consultations, north korea sees the current situation and the evolution of that situation in very much the same way that we do. as to what north korea, with

regard to what china is or is not prepared to do and what its potential for action might be i am reluctant to comment in a public forum about that. that is up to china and we will have to judge china on the basis of what it does over the next several months, but china is a country which has grave concerns about instability in the region, and we will work with them very closely to ensure that we continue as we have, to operate very much on a common front with china and our other partners. >> apart from the multilateral approach to china, can you tell us specifically, i you able to tell us specifically at this

open hearing, what bilateral actions china has taken before these tests to resolve the situation with regard to the nuclear-weapons? >> i am reluctant to get into that because it has to do with what china is doing as a sovereign country in its interests. we are satisfied that china is moving, all of its connections within the region, specifically in its connections with north korea. to give focus and reality to this effort. this is a subject on which there are bilateral communications. in a general sense i don't want to become too specific. >> do you reject the assertion by some that in some respects

north korea serves as a counterbalance for china, and it is not -- not all negative with regard to china? >> i can only comment on the basis of what we learn when we talk to the chinese. in that sense, i am convinced that they are acutely concerned about what north korea is doing and see no advantage to them or anyone else from what north korea is doing. >> it is clear to me that you are quite satisfied with the response of the chinese government in response to these 2 tests. >> we are committed to continuing our close consultation with the chinese as we go forward. we are each of the belief that

that consultation and coordinated action, we will bring a solution to this problem which we think is desirable land needed. >> the third option we have in the united states is enhancing our military capacity. what are our options for doing that. >> we have a very strong defense posture in the western pacific. i don't mean to be evasive but i am not going to get into the business of my colleagues in the defense department and the president's business to decide how we might do that if it is so desired. >> are we taking any small steps? have we taken any small steps over time that have improved the

u.s./north korean relationship in any respect? and i ask you about employment across the border. in my home state of mississippi, we have entertained medical doctors from north korea. i don't know if that accomplisheds much except for an exchange of ideas. those are 2 small steps. is there any reason for us to be encouraged by some other things that are going on? >> one of our strengths as a nation is our willingness to engage in humanitarian activities aside from political considerations. i would applaud the experts -- efforts of any american entity to try to bring about some improvements in the very desperate condition of the north

korean people. it is the basis on which a number of private non governmental organizations have operated within north korea. we have never, i don't believe we ever will in the future, try to use these activities as leverage for political ends. we deal with north korea on a government to government basis. i personally, i can speak for everyone in the administration and in the u.s. bureaucracy, this willingness to engage in humanitarian activities is one of the hallmarks of our country which gives me great pride. >> if i might, we will no doubt in gauging humanitarian efforts for the sheer good that it does. do you have any information to share with the committee on who gets the credit among the north

korean people? >> i have no specific information, it is anecdotal. i have reason to believe in my conversations with some of the u. s organizations that have been doing this over the years, the north korean people understand from where this assistance is coming, in recent years, the food we have provided comes with the american flag on the back which was there when it was distributed to the people of north korea. the north korean people understand better than we may expect, the humanitarian impulses of the united states and its people. >> thank you very much for e.b. being here. i want to underscore a point that senator wicker made about the 2 journalists. i understand the limitations of

this hearing. i must tell you, most of us believe is just another example of a gross human rights violation by north korea, in taking human pawns to use in some way, as they see it, for negotiations with the united states or in regards to their other issues. it is something we need to continue to raise and point out, how outrageous that type of action is. north korea's human rights record is deplorable generally. the state department's 2008 human rights record documents a laundry list of the regime's oppressive practices. i had the opportunity to charity helsinki commission, we deal on a regular basis with human rights, one of the points is how we can use those reports in a more effective way to try to help the people of these

regimes. i want you to share with us what we can do to try to advance human rights in north korea. i know we have a long list but i hope part of it is to try to improve the government's functioning as it relates to the basic rights of the people of north korea. i can assure you human rights concerns remain on the agenda of our relationship with north korea. in the case of the detained journalists, we are exploring all possible ways to bring out their release on humanitarian grounds. beyond that, as i indicated in my prepared remarks, i am not able to go, given privacy act considerations and other things. >> my question was more general than the 2 journalists. of one to do everything you can

to secure their release. most of us have expressed their views on it but it goes beyond the 2 journalists. the human rights record of north korea is outrageous, one of the worst countries in the world. >> we are moving under legislation, it was passed last year, we are moving ahead to designate a new special envoy for north korean human-rights. i would expect and hope that that would be done in the next several weeks. >> let me raise one more issue in my time. obviously the rest of north korea becoming a more sophisticated in nuclear-weapons is obvious, they are testing to deliver that kind of nuclear weapon, that is a major concern. it is also the transfer of that technology or weapons to terrorist organizations or to nonstate actors that have to be

a major concern. i heard you in response to senator kerry's question, talk about potential sanctions that would block the export of weapons. i really want to get a sense from you as to how effective we can be to make sure that type of technology is not exported to terrorist organizations or non state actors. >> we will do everything possible to monitor that situation. if we believe that there is evidence or an indication of proliferating activities, we will respond in a very strong fashion. this is a very difficult thing to do, obviously. it is one of the major reasons, not the only reason, but one of the reasons for the obama

administration, the ultimate goal remains verifiable denuclearization, if the korean peninsula is denuclearization, there's no risk of proliferation, but we are not prepared and never will be prepared for a policy which only concentrates on proliferation and ignores the root cause. >> i agree with that. if they have the capacity, the proliferation issue will be there. we know that. the best way to deal with that is the stated policy of the peninsula, being without nuclear weapons. i fully agree with you. it is not only a direct threat of north korea having nuclear weapons capacity but what it could be as a supplier to other regions and other organizations

including terrorist groups. there have already been some smoking guns here. we need to understand the risk factors and take appropriate action. proceeding through the united nations security council makes a great deal of sense and working with our partners in trying to get more effective health from the major countries in the region including china is our best chance to secure an effective policy to accomplish our goals of removing this threat. >> i agree with that. >> thank you. >> mr. ambassador, we are grateful for your service and your testimony today. i wanted to ray is primarily 2 issues, maybe 3. the first centers on china. i was noting in your statement, you said china has an important role to play in influencing the half north korea follows.

you spoke of your trip, china shared a, quote, deep concern about north korea's recent actions, working with china to turn its commitment into effective implementation of security council resolutions. i was going to ask about resolution 1718 in october 2006 and the enforcement thereof. since that was passed, we can track this. china's trade and investment in north korea has expanded. how can the obama administration, you are playing a central role in this, and urged china to enforce u.n. sanctions and take a more assertive posture towards north korea? any thoughts on that? >> what happened in regard to 1718, this is no excuse, soon

after that was passed, we found ourselves back in multilateralism ota asians with the dprk. as has been the case over the last few months, the subject of the implementation of u.n. security council resolutions, the existing ones, 1718 and the new one, is very much a subject of active consideration in our relationship, not only with the chinese but other countries in the region. you can expect that as we move forward, we are going to continue to be very concerned about implementation and other countries will be as well. >> anything you would recommend? i know you do not recommend what congress should do better any suggestions about how congress can be helpful on that narrow question of the enforcement of that resolution?

>> i am never hesitant to recommend what congress should do, but i do think -- >> that is okay. for today. >> i do think that congress has a role in this and as congress expresses its views, those can hopefully be reinforcing of the positions we are taking in bilateral government to government relationships with our partners. >> and also on that issue, i wanted to move to the question of the 6 party talks, what is your sense, what is your sense of the likelihood of the 6 party talks being real engaged in the near-term, and if you would, and, you talked about -- it was helpful for us to have a 4

pronged strategy, the fourth one being if north korea shows a serious willingness to diplomatic engagement, how do you see that playing out, how would you like to play out in terms of a role, any near-term six party talking agent, or bilateral strategy? >> optimally i would like to see the north korean signal strongly that they're prepared to return to the negotiating mode. the other members of the six party process including the united states are prepared to go back to the six party process. it has proven to be an effective mechanism. it is not perfect, and anyone who has been engaged in multilateral diplomatic efforts will tell you that as you expand beyond two, the process is more complicated by quantum factor.

but nonetheless, the six party process provides a platform within which each of us can examine what the others are doing, where we can resolve issues, where we can to work and make efforts with regard to a common purpose and with regard to north korea. i am hopeful that at some point, hopefully or preferably, not in the too distant future, north korea will come back to the table, and i can say that all other members of the six party process share the desire of the united states to see that happe as soon as possible. >> getting back to a question senator cardin race, the technology that relates to nuclear-weapons, do you have any sense -- we all have a concern, but do you have any sense that the north koreans, and this

moment, are engaged in any strategy to sell that technology? it is mostly, the concern is mostly about what they're doing internally. >> there is no question that the north koreans are aware of our attitude on the subject. beyond saying that i believe that they know there would be consequences for any such activity, i really don't want to go much further in my statements. >> fair enough. finally, we have a minute left, i will be really brief. the north koreans recently announced they have suspended the 1953 armistice to end the korean war. is there any practical effect to that? how do you see that? >> it is not welcome news, obviously. but the practical effect of it at this point a