Ladies and Gentlemen,

Good afternoon.

First of all, I would like to give you an overall picture of the discussions today. This morning, the second round of the six-party talks continued its plenary session in Fangfeiyuan, Diaoyutai State Guest Hotel. The parties held discussions on related issues of the six-party peace-talk process according to agreed agenda and put forward their respective suggestions on the establishment of a working group and timetable of the next round of talks. Chair of the meeting and head of the Chinese delegation Wang Yi stressed at the meeting that today's discussions were positive and effective. He said that differences still remained at present. However, just because of the existence of differences, difficulties or even conflicts of interests, the peace-talk process must be continued. He expressed hopes for the parties to show sincerity and build on what has been achieved.

Now the floor is open for questions.

Chongqing Morning Post of China: My first question is, will the talks be concluded tomorrow? My second question is, according to Xinhua News Agency, President of the Republic of Korea (ROK) told the press in his country that both the U.S. and the DPRK supported resolving the issue through consultation, which is a reflection of the narrowing differences between the two. What's the progress made in this regard so far? How far is it for the two sides to bridge their gaps?

A: About the question on duration of the talks, I can tell you that the talks will continue tomorrow, but I do not have information on the exact concluding date of the talks. I would like to point out that I have read reports saying that the progress and schedule of the talks would depend on the attitudes of China and the DPRK. These reports are incorrect. The proceeding of the talks is a result of consultations within the six parties. I know that you have worked very hard in covering this round of talks, for which I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks. However, I would also like to remind you that you should verify what you reports and sources they come from to avoid misleading the talks and resulting in misunderstandings. It is also my belief that the press and the parties share a common wish, which is to see the six-party talks make progress. We need to enhance coordination in this regard to create a good environment for the talks from the press. Please accept my thanks for your hard work once again.

My answer to your second question is, the six-party talks have been attached great importance to by leaders of the countries involved and placed high hopes on by the governments as well as leaders of the countries. The six delegations have made full preparations for the meeting. As I have told you at previous two press conferences, currently, consensuses among the parties are accumulating and differences narrowing. However, differences still remain, which is a reality. Therefore, we hope that the parties involved can exercise maximum patience to push the peace-talk process forward. What has satisfied us so far is that all the parties have displayed sober and practical attitudes during the meeting, putting forward many well-thought proposals, some of which are constructive. Accordingly, we hope that the parties can continue this flexibility and sincerity, which is a must for continuation of the peace-talk process.

Kyodo News Agency of Japan: I have two questions. First, you mentioned just now that the parties raised some suggestions or proposals. What are those put forward by China and what are the reactions to them from other parties? Second, the U.S. has indicated that if other parties are willing to make energy compensations to the DPRK, it will also consider doing the same. If the U.S. does not, will China still be willing to do so?

A: My answer to your first question is, the stance of China is that it hopes the peace-talk mechanism can keep going on and initial consensus can be reached on the schedule of next round of talks at the conclusion of this round. Many other delegations have similar views. As to the question about assistance, China reiterates that if the parties reach consensus on related issues, it will join efforts of the other parties to provide energy assistance to the DPRK.

UPI of the US: Yesterday evening the DPRK held a press conference after 9 p.m. but did not notify the press until 10 minutes before the conference began. What are your comments on this practice and the content of the conference? In addition, the DRRK criticized the U.S. of taking hard-line positions, which obstructed the progress of the meeting. What's your comment? My second question is, will Vice Minister Wang Yi hold a press conference at the conclusion of the talks? Thirdly, you mentioned just now that you hope the parties can reach an initial agreement on the date of opening the third round of talks as early as possible, would you please disclose some detailed information on whether the third round of talks will be held within 6 months to come?

A: Let me answer your first question first. As to notification by the DPRK of the press conference 10 minutes before it opened, I am not in a position to comment. However, I think that so long as there are sources of information, it is good news for friends as you from the press. I have noted that many agencies paid great attention to this press conference held by the DPRK and covered it on the spot. I have a suggestion for you. Do more running and you will be able to get to the destination at highest speed. As to the stance illustrated by the DPRK, I think the differences between the parties are narrowing and consensus accumulating during the talks. However, the differences still exist. I do not want to criticize any party but to express appreciation for the down-to-earth, sincere and candid spirits demonstrated by the parties. As to your question about the possibility of holding a press conference by Vice Minister Wang Yi at the conclusion of the talks, my answer is, it is very likely. However, if such a conference is held, we will not leave you with only 10 minutes' notice. My answer to your third question about the date of the opening of next round of talks is, the parties are still consulting with each other. If a consensus is reached, I will tell you.

Joong-Ang Libo of the ROK: Have the parties reached consensus on the establishment of a working group during the talks? Can you make an introduction to where the largest differences lie in?

A: As to whether and how to set up a working group, the parties are still consulting with each other. It is generally held that to push the six-party talks forward, it is necessary to set up a working group at present. All the parties are working in that direction. As for your second question, I am not in a position to make any disclosure. However, I can frankly tell you that differences still exist. If you noted the introduction I made at the first day's press conference, you would know that the parties have also reached many consensuses. All the parties are fully prepared for the differences because they know that the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue is a very complicated one, which cannot be solved through one or two talks. This perception has been proved during the talks. Nonetheless, we are pleased to see that consensuses are accumulating and differences narrowing little by little.

Interfax of Russia: Is there any possibility of a joint document being adopted? If yes, how likely?

A: At present, the parties are still holding intense discussions on the document. That means, of course, that there is such a possibility.

China Daily: We noted that your ties had been changing everyday since the first day. My question for you is, State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan said yesterday that the meeting had entered the crucial stage. What's your comment on today's talks compared with those of yesterday?

A: I have changed my tie to give you a fresh image every day. Comparing today's talks with those of the previous two days, I would like to say that each day has its own agenda. The talks are all important in themselves and substantive in nature. All the parties are attending the talks in a sincere and pragmatic attitude every day.

Nihon Keizai Shimbun of Japan: I have a question about the freezing of nuclear activities. You mentioned yesterday that the DPRK indicated willingness to stop its nuclear programmes during the talks. However, the DPRK later said that what it meant by "nuclear programmes" is nuclear weapon programmes. Can you clarify on this point?

A: As to this question, the issues in point yesterday were the first-phase actions and corresponding measures for a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. During the discussions, the DPRK put forward the suggestion for a complete end to nuclear activities, which has been welcomed and attached great importance to by all the other parties. As for issues related to the complete end to nuclear activities and dismantlement of nuclear programmes, the parties have held discussions, including those on many detailed problems. The issues would be further addressed by the working group, should they be established. On the issue of complete end to nuclear activities, the DPRK has made clear its stance several times since mid-December. You can check after you are back in office.

New York Times of the US: I have two questions. First, can you make an introduction to the differences between peacefully utilizing nuclear technologies and possessing nuclear weapons? Second, the U.S. has always demanded complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement (CVID) of all nuclear programmes by the DPRK and made this its bottom line. Is it this bottom line that has made the parties unable to reach consensus on a joint statement or document? Should the U.S. show more flexibility in this regard?

A: My answer to your first question is, China holds that no nuclear weapons, no matter of what forms, shall emerge from the Korean Peninsula. We have elaborated this stance very clearly during the talks. My answer to your second question or the question about CVID is that the U.S. has displayed its consistent position. In my opinion, the goal of CVID is to realize a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula but only CVID is not enough, since the parties involved have other concerns of their own, including the security concerns of the DPRK. All these concerns should be addressed. All the six parties have agreed to take coordinated steps to address the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue and reasonable concerns of each other. On detailed questions related thereto, the parties will continue to consult each other and many issues will not be addressed until future talks are open.

Knight-Ridder Newspapers of the US: You mentioned more than once just now that the differences between the parties are gradually narrowing. My question is, what are the compromises made by the U.S. and the DPRK? In particular, with regard to the issue of highly enriched uranium (HEU), have they made any concessions?

A: This question relates to many detailed issues. Since the talks are still going on, I am not in a position to disclose those specifics. The parties have illustrated their respective stances. It can be said that the parties have got a clearer understanding of each other's positions through the talks. The detailed issue that you have mentioned, i.e. HEU, has been touched upon during the talks.

Sankei Shimbun of Japan: I have a question about the issuance of a joint document. If the parties are unable to issue a joint document, can we say that this round of six-party talks is a failure? Moreover, if we cannot say it's a failure, what are the criteria for a correct judgement?

A: As to the issue of joint document, my answer is, the parties are still holding discussions in this regard. I think it is possible that such a document will be adopted. You should never lose your hope when it comes down to the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue. Even if such a document is not adopted this time, I don't think this round of six-party talks is a failure. Anyway, we have made one step forward. For example, the second round of the six-party talks has been successfully launched and entered the stage of discussing substantive issues, and the parties involved have explicitly set the objective of denucleaization and reaffirmed solving the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue peacefully. Moreover, all the parties have agreed to take coordinated steps to address the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula and concerns of each other. Of course, since the talks are still going on, it is still premature to make a complete conclusion of it.

Thank you.