On the eve of the resumed Six-party talks, with the assistance of Dr.Robert Lawrence Kuhn, the author of 'The Man Who Changed China' and a managing director at Smith Barney/CitiGroup, Li Xuejiang, the People's Daily Washington Bureau chief, have an exclusive interview with Christopher Hill, assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs of US State Department and the head of US delegation to the Six-party talks. The following is the text of the interview.

Christopher Hill, assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs of US State Department and the head of US delegation to the Six-party talks. (C); Li Xuejiang, the People's Daily Washington Bureau chief(R); Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn, the author of 'The Man Who Changed China' and a managing director at Smith Barney/CitiGroup.

LI XUEJIANG (Li): Thank you very much for this interview. My first question is who was the first to propose the resumption of that October Three Way Talks in Beijing?

AMBASSADOR HILL (Hill): Well, the Chinese side called to inform Secretary Rice that the DPRK to be sending a delegation to Beijing, and they asked her if she would send me to Beijing also.

Li: That means DPRK was the first to propose the resumption?

Hill: Well all what I know is Chinese convinced the DPRK to come to Beijing, and then they asked if we would come because the DPRK was there so we could have a discussion that whether the DPRK agree to come back to the talks. So we did that, we had a discussion, and DPRK did agree to come back to the talks. That time I was traveling in South Pacific so I think It was Minister Li Zhaoxing called Secretary Rice and told her that DPRK was planning to come to Beijing, so she instructed me to go, that was the sequence.

Li: What do you think were the reasons and motives of the DPRK for their willingness to return back to the talks? Just your personal feeling or a guess.

Hill: My personal feeling is the DPRK did not anticipate the strong reaction of the international community. They did not anticipate the fact that their decision in summer helped push China and US close together. They did not anticipate China and U.S were close together and co-operate so well together. I think it may be the combination of these facts.

Li: What do you think it would be the starting point for the resumed talks? I guess the DPRK would insist on lifting the financial sanctions, and your side would like to talk about the implementation of the September 19th joint statement, have you reach an agreement on the initial topic of talks?

Hill: It was clear that the purpose of the talk is the denuclearization, so we would like very early indication from DPRK that they are serious about denuclearization we would hope that when we go back to the negotiation then we do that with the idea we would get from the DPRK early commitment of denuclearization, may be even some actual facts on the ground even some steps. And we would take some steps as well.

Indeed the purpose of the six-party talks is not to talks. The purpose of it is to implement the September statement. I expect we all read it again and we all pledge to implement it fully. We will want to show some significant progress.

Li: I noted that you assessment about the meeting as "positive and constructive", But in my personal opinion, It would be very difficult to achieve a break- through. Why were you so optimistic?

Christopher Hill, assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs of US State Department and the head of US delegation to the Six-party talks, works in his office.

Hill: First of all, I think I was miss-quoted on that not by you but by some other media. What I said was it was very important we plan the first session very carefully when we actually meet we were then be able to make some substantial progress. Why I am optimistic? I do not go into the process with the idea that we are going to fail. I think if you are going to anything with such an idea you will probably fail. So it is better to go with the idea you will succeed. I do believe September statement that we all worked very hard on, especially the Chinese delegation, worked till 3 O'lock in the morning every day. We believe that was really a very good statement. I try to be optimistic because I believe in logic that the DPRK will look at the statement and realize there is a good deal there for DPRK.

Li: In your meeting with the DPRK delegation two weeks ago in Beijing, Did the DPRK asked you to treat it as a nuclear power? And how would you deal with that demand?

Hill: Well, I don't recall what they asked me, I do recall that I told them that we do not consider them a nuclear power. They are not nuclear power, we do not accept them as a nuclear power. I think China and U.S have the identical position. I pointed out that no one else does either. I wanted to make it clear that we are not interested in adding to the nuclear club. Their decision to explosive nuclear device that was very awkward and dangerous decision. So what we need from now is their commitment to get away from this kind of nuclear program.

Li: In that case, there will be a difficult negotiation if the DPRK insist on being treated as nuclear power.

Hill: So it will be a difficult negotiation, but it is the North Korean who exploded the nuclear device, they have created this situation, I think they need to be serious about creating a new situation.

Li: If the talks failed, is there some possibility for the Unite States to use the force? A report from the Washington Times said that the US stepped up the preparation of the military plan to attack on the DPRK.

Hill: First of all, I do not know there was this report. But I can tell you what my President said many many times that we are committed to finding a diplomatic solution. Most importantly we committed to working with China to find a diplomatic solution to this difficult matter. That is the track we are on.

Li: The president Bush said also if the PDRK was found transfer nuclear material it would be a grave consequence. Does that mean the use of force?

Hill: Well, what do you think the grave consequence means? It means something very serious. Let me tell you, what will be if Chinese people and American people wake up one morning and we found Al Qaeda or some terrorist organizations like that has nuclear weapons thanks to the North Korea, I think that will be very serious matter for all. Do not you think so?

Li: Then, what will you do?

Hill: I think that the President words stand for itself, but I think the Chinese Government would be extremely concerned about this. I doubt you will really find much difference between the Chinese government and the American Government on what we all need to do if the North Korean has sold their nuclear materials to an international terrorist organization. I think we will all be in an agreement about what to do. I will not worry about having any difference about that.

Li: The DPRK has asked the US to lift the financial sanctions, how do you deal with their demand?

Hill: I told them on Octomber 31st, we are prepared to discuss this issue. We will form a bilateral mechanism or working group to deal with that, to discuss and address it. Next week when we meet in Beijing, there will be a separate bilateral mechanism to have a preliminary discussion on this matter. But I am not going to be chairing that. We will have somebody from the US Treasure Department. We have had considerable discussion with the DPRK on this matter .It is a separate mechanism. They said to us they understand our position. Whether we can solve this issue, it will depend on the result of this process, namely, it will depend on what the DPRK tell us. It also depends, to some extent, on some legal issues.

Li: Do you have some specific expectations of this new round of talks and how do you measure the progress or success?

Hill: During the meeting on the 27th and 28th of November, we did have some specific ideas and indications that the DPRK would prepared to deal with specifics at the coming round. We have also been in very close contact with the Chinese and I would say our co-operation with China over the past few weeks has been unprecedented in the entire six-party talks. And Chinese have also been in direct contact with the North Korea, and they also have believed that we will see some specific idea for the moving ahead.

However, I am not to predict success or to express optimism, but you know I'll have a much better picture of that probably a week from now. We need the concrete progress. We need the sign that we have moved off of simply talking about the pages of the September agreement, we need to move to the next phase, that is, to the implementation. So I think this is a new phase, important phase that if we can do this successfully, I think we can look ahead to the full realization of this agreement.

It is very important that China supported the denuclearization. China and the US have a clear understanding of what we are trying to achieve, I would say the goal are pretty close to identical, we have very strong view that we need to achieve complete denuclearization here. There has been considerable overlap with the Chinese. China has very active diplomacy with the DPRK. The Chinese can be persuasive with the DPRK. I have no doubt they have made a very clear and forceful case to the DPRK that there is the need for progress and there is a need for getting it done, getting some progress done now.

Li: Not long ago, Minister LI Zhaoxing said the main problem is the lack of the mutual trust between the Unite States and the DPRK, do you agree? In your opinion, what, do you think, is the biggest obstacle to the progress and success of the six-party talks?

Hill: First of all, I have a great respect for your foreign minister, great respect for his analyses for the situation. But I do not think the problem is the lack of trust. I think the problem is the DPRK is having terrible economic problems, terrible social problems, and in meanwhile it is making nuclear weapons. I think people should focus on the production of nuclear weapons rather than the issue of trust, this is not problem of trust. This is a problem of nuclear weapons. If it was problem of trust, it is easily to address that. We cannot address distrust without addressing the problem of nuclear weapons. That is the issue.

Li: But the DPRK said they have to develop the nuclear weapon as a deterrent to the threat by the United State so how would you address their security concerns like this?

Hill: I do not think just because they said that you have to believe that. That is, you are correct they said that, but you are not correct you have to believe it.

Li: But the Washington Times report certainly enhanced their distrust of the intention of the US, that justifies their security concerns.

Hill: The Washington Times and other media, they have lot of distrust to a lot of different governments, including my own. So the fact of the Washington Times distrust to the DPRK should not be a surprised. The real issue is does the DPRK want a good relationship with the US, if it does, it could have a good relationship with the US. But they cannot also have nuclear weaponS, if they have nuclear weapons they will not have good relationship with us. If they want have a good relationship with us they should not have nuclear weapons. They cannot have both.

Li: Have you noted the Director-General of the IEAE, Dr Elbaradei imputed the proliferation problem to some double standards that "nuclear weapons are OK in the hands of good guys and not OK in the hands of bad guys - - it needs to have a system that is not based on subjective considerations." His another comment says, to the effect, given some countries resistance to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the nuclear test by the DPRK was predictable. How would you like to respond to those remarks?

Hill: I think there is a lot of problems in the world, certainly the issue of nuclear states, one of the nuclear states like China, like the Unite States, France, like Russia, whether nuclear states should have some kind of reduction of nuclear weapons, they are some discussions about this disarmament, but that does not justify, no one should think that justify a country like DPRK having nuclear weapons because DPRK really is a country that needs to focus on some other things, such as food for its people. Do you like Chinese people providing food to DPRK, Chinese people providing fuel, and gasoline to DPRK, what is DPRK providing? It providing nuclear weapons, I do not think it is a good trade.

Li: What about his another remark that some countries resist signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?

Hill: I am Sorry I have to read what that speech was for. But it is not for me to be making comments about Dr. Elbaradei. I need to make comments about the DPRK which really has some profound problems by now, is continuing to develop nuclear weapons and in a way creating alarm possible arms race in the North East Asia. That I don't think Chinese people want to see. I do not think it is good for China to see the DPRK develop nuclear weapons. That is not good for us and not good for anybody. That was what we should be focusing on. China is a very big country, Unite states also a big one. We should be able to convince the North Korea to give up nuclear weapons.

Li: Do you like your job as the chief negotiator?

Hill: It depends on what day you are talking about. On the 31 Oct, in Beijing, I thought I have a very good job.

Li: Do you find more satisfaction or more vexation in this job?

Hill: Any time you are dealing with nuclear weapons that would be a lot to worry about. I worried because I do not know if the DPRK really want to give up the nuclear weapons, that was what worried me. That is the great concern. In terms of satisfaction, I believe China and Unite States need to work together on many problems in the world, so it is a great satisfaction to me that we are dealing on terrible problems of the DPRK nuclear weapons, it helping us to achieve something else that even more important in making China and U.S work together, that is a great source of satisfaction.

Li: I wonder if you got angry when your dealing with your DPRK counterpart was not going well?

Hill: I always lose my temper when my baseball team loses, that was very frustrating. But in negotiation, I try not to lose my temper because it is important that you remain logical and thinking clearly to the negotiations. But there are times in negotiations it is important to show some anger, not always to show patience. So some times when the Chinese side often asked me to be more patient I asked Chinese side to be less patient. So sometime we have some good discussions about that.

Li: Did you get angry in the past talks?

Hill: the only time that I can remember getting angry was when we have something agreed with the DPRK then they came about an hour later and say they changed their mind, I do not like to find the same ground twice.

Li: Were there any exciting moments? And the distressed moments?

Hill: Well, there was very distressing when DPRK pull back in August 2005, pull back from the agreement and said they have return toPyongyang for more consultations. So I worried whether we had succeeded. Fortunately, they did come back in September and we finished the agreed statement. That was very distressing. I think over all, even though there was a lot of tension and a lot of pressures, I think the delegations all work very well together. I work very well with my Chinese counterpart Mr. Wu Dawei. And I think it is very important in dealing with my North Korean counterpart always to show respect, which I did, it is very exciting when we had agreement on September 19th ,2005, because this was the first time the North Korean has agreed with the all its neighbors to get rid of its nuclear weapons.

Li: What was your impression of Mr. Kim, the DPRK Chief negotiator?

Hill: He obviously professional and he has a lot of experiences, so because he has more experience than I do on the nuclear negotiation, it made me have to work hard, I have to do much home work in order to meet with him. I think it is important that not to be personal about these things. There is a big problem and big issue, so, I think it is important to be able to communicate clearly, and not get angry, not get negative in the actual negotiations.

Li: What is your personal impression of the deputy minister Wu dawei and Minister Li Zhaoxing?

Hill: I have high respect for the Chinese Foreign Ministry people. I think they are very professional. I was especially impressed during the talks. The Chinese delegation under Wu Dawei worked so hard to try to come out with drafts of the agreement. They were trying to understand which were the important part for each delegation. They try to put that together in one draft, so it was very difficult. So I have great respect for Wu Dawei. I really enjoy as a diplomatic colleague because we share similar sense of hummer. We have tell jokes together even though for the interpreter, they were difficult times because it is difficult to interpret some jokes. We had very good relationship. The only thing is he told me how to smoke a cigarette, probably that is not a good thing.

Li: I noted that you expressed your willingness to visit Pyongyang, had you got the support in advance from the Secretary Rice and President Bush?

Hill: Yes, in fact, this idea came out and there are some positive feeling about it. The trouble was then the DPRK announced it will not abandon the nuclear weapons unless we give them a light water reactor. So I do not rule out that the visit could happen in the future. The DPRK has to be first serious about getting rid of the nuclearweapons. I do not want to go to see the DPRK when they are producing nuclear weapons. But they must be serious about getting rid of their nuclear weapons, and joining the international community. Then It would be a good idea.

Li: Do not you have some worries about opposition from hardliners from the US capitol Hill and from the Pentagon?

Hill: One of great things In America is that people have a lot of different opinions. If you ask 5 Americans the question you perhaps get six different answers. We are very proud of it in our opinion. So I can assure you that when I negotiate I am doing it with the full support of Secretary Rice and President Bush.

Li: Your chief representative in Taibei tied to impose a deadline on Taiwan to purchase U.S. weaponry and he expressed that the U.S. would review its commitment to defending Taiwan if they do not invested in the own defense. Those remarks caused a strong reactions from the Taiwan people they even demanded the US to recall back your representative because it was an obvious coercion. What is your explanation to that?

Hill: You were very concerned about what Taiwan people think, that isgood sign: you care about Taiwan people. I pleased about that. I will disappoint you because that I do not want to make any news on Taiwan, we have one China policy, we recognize the People Republic of China, our embassy is in Beijing, we are guided by the three communiqu��s. We are also guided by the Taiwan Relation Act. Our policy has not changed. How many question you asked me today about it, I would not change that policy.

Li: But why Bush Administration pushes so hard for Taiwan to purchase the US weapon? What is the reason?

Hill: That is a good question. Look, our policy is quite well known about these issues. We are guided by the Taiwan Relation Act, and we believe Taiwan has issues they need to deal with. I am not giving them advice about how to deal with them. But we do believe it is very important for Mainland and Taiwan try to have a dialogue and work things out. I am pleased to see more tourists coming from the Mainland to Taiwan recently. And I encourage you to go there too.

Li: Why the Bush administration is opposed to the EU lifting the ban on its export of weapons to China?

Hill: I think we make it very clear we do not think that is the issue now. That was an issue a year ago, that is not a problem now. We have regular discussions with the European Union and we discuss our relations with China: How we see the situation in East Asia. We like to see Europe even more present there. Europe is very interested in Chinese market which is good, but it should be more broadly interests in these issues. So we do not have any problems with the Europeans on this issue. In regard to weapons we do not think Europe needs to get involved in selling weapons. We do not see reason to change their policy on that. That was for the Europeans to decide And they decided that they do not change that policy.

Li: You seem to have understood China much better than most American politicians. Why are there always some rights and hardliners in US Capitol Hill and Pentagon who have deep biases against China and even regard China as a potential threat to the U.S.? What do you think are the reasons behind?

Hill: China is a very big country, and many many miles away from U.S. Some time it is hard for people to understand something so far away. I think probably some people in China who have biases against Unite States also, I would not be surprised. I think it is a question of trying to have more communication, more dialogue, we are very pleased that some young Chinese to come here to study, we believe that they will go back to China and help China, maybe help people in China to understand the U.S. We would like more Americans to go to China to do the same. Is there bias to China? I mean sometimes people think China is much more powerful economically than it is, then they exaggerate, somehow, and regard China as a economic danger to U.S. When people visit to China he can see China has succeeded remarkably, but there are still many challenges to be overcome. I think when you go to China you can see people everywhere they have good points and they have some other points. That is like everywhere. I think it is important to spend some time in China and get outside Beijing ,and you could see that China is very complex. Then you would not have biases about China, you just have an open mind, trying to understand China better. I would say the same thing to the U.S., do not judge U.S by Washington, go out to see the rest of the country.

Li:How do you see the China-African summit ?

Hill: I lived for 2 years in Africa, I think it is good China pay attention to Africa. I think Africa needs help, I think China can help Africa. You are talking to someone who spent 2 years of my life in Africa, I welcome China trying to do this. So we also doing things in Africa, I want us to do more.

Li: I noted that the Secretary Rice urged Asian nations to form a broader security mechanism or structure in the Northeast Asia taking the Six-Party Talks as a starting point since there is emerging an unprecedented co-operation in the region. What are the reactions from other countries in the region? Do you have any specific proposals about it?

Hill: We try to have a good dialogue with countries including with China about this broader security issue, for example in Kuala Lumpur, we had meeting of 10 countries including Canada and other different countries at the border of Pacific. We talk about how to improve, how to think about a security structure. We have look at the multilevel structure in Europe, we have to give the European a lot of credit they have done very well to create the structure. It was not easy, for example that Germany, France were able to put behind them, so much war and so much mistrust. And to become 2 pillars of the new structures of Europe. So we think what can be done in Asia to be that.

Li: Do you have any specific proposals about it?

Hill: We do not have specific proposal yet, No. We are interested in a dialogue about that. By the way, Chinese government is also interested in it. I think that is something we could do together. Japan is interested also. But you know, we have to try to get the historical issues behind this. I think sometimes with Japanese - Chinese relationship those historical issues are difficult for people to push to behind. You know Germany and France had terrible problem, if you know European history. So, we thought it was very positive when Prime Minister Abe visited Beijing. We were very pleased because we want Japan and China to have a good relationship. We know very well that the history is very difficult.

Li: Last year, in the American-Japanese Ministerial Meeting, 2 plus 2, It published a joint statement, which specified the Taiwan issue as one of the common strategic objectives, which caused China's very strong reaction. How do you explain about the motives behind it?

Hill: I think if you could start to think about it, the Unite States and Japan have common interests, in making sure there is peace and prosperity on the Straight. You will recall, it was the time when China had passed Anti- Secession Law there were a lot of tension. Now, I think, there is less tension, of cause, there is some tension inside Taibei, but this is another subject. At the time, one and half years ago, there was more tension. I think, obviously, we do not want tension, Japan does not want tension, anyone else who was there would also not want tension.

Li: But one person wants tension. That is the Taiwan leader, Chen Shuibian.

Hill: We do not want it and the Japanese do not want it, and we want to have peace and prosperity on the Straight. By the way, ever since that time, since Spring of 2005, things look better.

Li: How do you assess the current relations between China and Unites States?

Hill: I think the current relationship is very good. The reason that I think is very good is starts from the top, our two Presidents are talking frequently, they were frequently on the telephone. I think they have very good relationship. That relationship at the top has very positive impact on the rest of our relationships. I know the Secretary Rice really values her relationship with Li Zhaoxing, I value my relationship with Wu Dawei. Sure, we have very good relationship and we are really talking about solving problems, difficult problem. We are working very closely together. So I like to think the relationship that we have today is not just based on words and slogans, it is based on real price of solving real problems. I think we solve this North Korea problem together I think we will, I am confident that China and U.S together we can solve anything, especially, this nuclear problem. Then we can all look back and have satisfaction from the fact we work together on the problem.

Li: But why the president Bush returned ��the strategic partnership�� relation into ��the constructive co-operation relationship��? Don't you think it was a retrogress?

Hill: I am not going to talk about which administration is good or another is bad. I would tell you that over the course of 7 American Presidents, we have had very growing relations with China. I will say today the relationship is about as good as ever . It would be good to keep the relation going in the positive direction so the next president will continue that, will continue to improve the relationship.

I think there is a question that China and the US have some different points of view. We have differences in the world, for example, we have difference about some of the problems in Africa, we have some differences in human right issues, we have differences in how to approach to those things. We also have a great interests we trying to work together, I notice, for example, because I cover not only Chinaand also South East Asia, I hear people saying somehow China is trying to push American influence out of South East Asia. I do not see that. I think China and US can work together in these areas. So, Unite States has very close working relationship with China, I will never forget that President of China Hu was going to the Boeing factory in Seattle, I was there also, to see the American workers wearing working cloth greeting the President of China. They are very happy to welcome Chinese President to visit them. To me that is very moving to see American workers meeting the Chinese President, I hope the Chinese people was also very moving to see their President meeting the American worker. Like Chinese workers, they need to work and need to get salary and take care of their family, so I think we have lot more similarity then we do differences.

Li: Who has most say in Bush Administration on the U.S. China Policy? State Department or Pentagon? And to what extent, your opinion could influence on US policy making on the East Asian affairs, especially on China? Is Secretary Rice willing to listen to your opinions on Chinese affair?

Hill: I think the most important person on the policy towards China is President Bush. The second most important opinions on China policy is Secretary Rice'. She is in charge of foreign relations of the US. I think the Secretary Rice is very important to this relationship.

Li: Will she listen to your opinion?

Hill: You have to ask her, I see her every day, including this morning, a couple of hours ago. I saw her twice yesterday, and we have very good relationship. You have to ask her if she listen to me.

Li: I wonder who will replace the former Deputy Secretary Zoellic in charge of the China affairs?

Hill: As soon as you find it out please let me know. Do not worry, we will have a new deputy and I am sure that the new deputy will be interested in continuing our strategic dialogue with China.

Li: Thank you very much indeed.