Home > Spokesperson's RemarksĀ 
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu's Regular Press Conference on December 2, 2010

2010-12-03

On the afternoon of December 2, 2010, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu held a regular press conference.

Q: What response has China got from other parties for its proposal of emergency consultations among heads of delegation to the Six-Party Talks? The US media says China is putting on a PR show. How do you comment?

A: Is it fair that those who brandish weapons seem to be justified, but we, as host of the Six-Party Talks, are criticized for calling for dialogue?

It is noted with pleasure that all parties have spoken positively of China's efforts in maintaining regional peace and stability, and Russia has expressed support for China's proposal.

I would also like to point out that the emergency consultations among heads of delegation to the Six-Party Talks do not equal official meetings of the Six-Party Talks and should constitute no difficulties for relevant parties. China's intention in making the proposal is to hope that all parties sit down and exchange views on major issue of current concern to ease the situation on the Peninsula.

The Six-Party Talks is the only platform for dialogue and communication among the parties in Northeast Asia. Under current circumstances, it is of greater importance to give full play to the role of the Six-Party mechanism and seek a proper settlement of relevant issue through dialogue and consultation.

China hopes dialogue and consultation will produce positive results. I would like to stress that in order to achieve results, talks should get started in the first place. Only when talks are started is there possibility of finding a solution. We hope parties positively consider China's proposal, proceeding from the overall interests of maintaining peace and stability in Northeast Asia and pushing for denuclearization on the Peninsula.

Q: Are there plans for senior Chinese officials, including State Councilor Dai Bingguo to visit the DPRK in coming days? Is there any official already there?

A: The report that an official is already there not true. China has recently engaged in a series of diplomatic efforts and stayed in close communication with relevant parties in various ways. As for your specific question, I don't have information to share at present.

Q: The US and Japan will engage in a military exercise, six times of the US-ROK drill in terms of scale, starting from tomorrow in areas that cover waters surrounding Japan including waters off east Okinawa, and US aircraft carrier is reported to participate. Moreover, the ROK announced to have one week of shelling exercises from December 6 in areas including those close to disputed waters between the DPRK and the ROK. How do you comment? Will the exercises increase conflicts on the Peninsula?

A: There are enough of similar military drills. Under current circumstances, parties concerned should do more to contribute to peace and stability on the Peninsula and in the region, rather than the contrary. The international community will not support any action that escalates the situation. At present relevant parties should stay calm and exercise restraint so as to ease the situation and resolve the issue through dialogue.

I would like to emphasize that military alliance or demonstration of force cannot solve the Peninsula issue. The only way out is dialogue and negotiation.

Bilateral military alliances between relevant countries should not harm the interest of third parties including China, which is our consistent and explicit position.

Q: The Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony this year may not hand out the award as Liu Xiaobo is serving his sentence. How do you comment?

A: The Norwegian Nobel Committee awards this year's Nobel Peace Prize to an imprisoned criminal convicted for breaking Chinese law. By publicly supporting criminal activities in China, it openly challenges China's judicial system and flagrantly interferes in China's internal affairs.

Isn't it true that some people at the Committee claimed in public that the Nobel Peace Prize this year was a "political decision" and hoped it would produce changes in China? It can be seen that they have a clear political motive, which is in sheer contravention of the purpose of the Prize. Anyone who upholds justice without prejudice will make a correct judgment.

The international community should not have double standards in terms of ruling country by law and abiding by law. Many countries have rules and regulations on inciting subversion. If you refer to the United States Code and the Treason Act 1351 of Britain, I think you may draw a different conclusion.

The issue of Liu Xiaobo is not one of freedom of speech or human rights, but an issue of whether to respect other country's judicial sovereignty or not, and how to view China's development path and social system. The 1.3 billion Chinese people have more say on these issues than the few individuals at the Nobel Peace Committee. No country has the right to interfere. We will continue to unswervingly follow the development path suitable for China's national conditions.

Q: Do you have any comment on the upcoming meeting between Iran and P5+1 in Geneva?

A: At present, diplomatic settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue is facing a new opportunity, which China hopes all parties seize and work together for positive results of the meeting with a view to bringing the issue back to the track of dialogue and negotiation. China will take a constructive part in the meeting.

Q: How do you comment on the OSCE Summit in Kazakhstan?

A: We have taken note of the OSCE Summit in Astana, Capital of Kazakhstan. It is good for parties to strengthen dialogue and cooperation as the world is faced with many common security issues.

Q: About the exchange of fire between the DPRK and the ROK, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said yesterday that China decides its position based on the merits of each case and does not seek to protect any side. But will China take the side of the provoker or the victim?

A: Your quotation of China's position is precise. We believe the exchange of fire was a tragic incident and express grief and regret over the casualties it has caused. But this issue is complicated since the two sides ac