Erin McPike: First of all, let me just ask you since the South Korean newspaper reported that

you
cancelled dinner because of fatigue, and then they said you spent more time with the Japanese than the
South Koreans. What happened?
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson: They never invited us for dinner, then at the last minute they
realized that optically it wasnt playing very well in public for them, so they put out a statement that we
didnt have dinner because I was tired.
EM: So are you saying they lied about it?
RT: No, it was just their explanation.
EM: Ok.
RT: I had dinner last night.
EM: You had dinner last night. With who? Your staff? OK.
RT: The host country decides whether we are going to do things or not. We didnt decide that.
EM: Given the focus that theyre saying was on Japan, let me say broadly it seems like there is an
extraordinary focus on Japan from the administration, given the Presidents two meetings with Abe,
your visit, Mattis visit, and the vice president coming next month Japan is getting more focus at a
high level than any other country. It has to be more than just a reassurance mission. What do you want
from the Japanese and what can you give the Japanese?
RT: Well, let me correct a little bit just from the perspective on what you just said.
There has been a high level visit with the Japanese because the Japanese prime minister is in place.
South Koreas government is not in place. So there's been no opportunity for a high level meeting, so
lets keep things in perspective. When Secretary Mattis came, [he] came to Korea also. So no
preference given there. Vice President Pences trip next month hes going to both countries also. So
there is no ... I dont think anything should be made that there is some kind of imbalance in the
relationship. I think its more of a reflection of the situation with the Korean government. The
impeachment of the president the Korean president they have an interim government now.
Theyll have a new government in place after elections in May. So in the meantime, the level of
communication between our governments at the active ministerial level and active presence level has
been very its been frequent. Foreign minister Yun and I have met several times and have spoken on
the phone several times, so I dont think anything should be read into the amount of time with visits. I
think people are making more of that than they should.
EM: Ok then, separate from that, with respect to Japan, there is a lot of focus. So beyond the
reassurance part of the process, what do you want from Japan? What can you give to Japan?
RT: Are you talking about from a State Department standpoint, or just broadly, the relationship?
EM: Both.
RT: Well, Japan is because of the size of their economy they are our most important ally in the
region, because of the standpoint of both security issues, economic issues, stability issues. So thats not
anything new. Thats been the situation now, for decades. South Korea, similarly, is an important
partner relative to stability of northeast Asia. Japan has a larger footprint in the Asian Pacific region so,
obviously, those relationships are where our common interests are aligned. The attention on South
Korea early in this administration has been dominated by the actions of North Korea, and thats taken a
lot of careful time and attention. Japan, also, is obviously an important element of that trilateral
relationship.
[05:04]
EM: You told Fox yesterday that nothing is off the table with respect to the nuclearization of the
Korean peninsula. In your confirmation hearing, you kind of said that South Korea and Japan dont
need to have nuclear weapons. Has your view changed, given the urgency of the situation with North
Korea, particularly because Japan could finalize development of a nuclear weapon rather quickly if
they needed to?
RT: No, it has not, nor has the policy of the United States changed. Our objective is a denuclearized
Korean peninsula. A denuclearized Korean peninsula negates any thought or need for Japan to have
nuclear weapons. We say all options are on the table, but we cannot predict the future. So we do think
it's important that everyone in the region has a clear understanding that circumstances could evolve to
the point that for mutual deterrence reasons, we might have to consider that. But as I said yesterday,
there are a lot of theres a lot of steps and a lot of distance between now and a time that we would
have to make a decision like that. Our objective is to have the regime in North Korea come to a
conclusion that the reasons that they have felt they have had to develop nuclear weapons, those reasons
are not well-founded. We want to change that understanding. With that, we do believe that if North
Korea [were to] stand down on this nuclear program, that is their quickest means to begin to develop
their economy and to become a vibrant economy for the North Korean people. If they dont do that,
they will have a very difficult time developing their economy.
EM: Over the last couple of days, youve laid out a couple of options that you can take, saying that all
options are on the table. But what is option one?
RT: Well, option one is to send very strong messages to North Korea by way of the sanctions
sanctions which have already been imposed by the UN Security Council resolutions and to ask that
everyone fully implement those sanctions. And there are additional steps that we can take to increase
the pressure on the regime in hopes that they will understand the path theyre on is simply not
sustainable.
EM: And those steps whats step one and whats step two?
RT: Well, the first steps are the UN sanctions. There are broader sanctions that we can consider. I think
that there are additional actions that the UN, that we can consider. There are broader participation by
other countries in putting pressure on North Korea. So, this is a staged approach in which we want to
give the North Korean government time to understand whats happening, time to make decisions and
adjust. Were not its not our objective to force them into some brash action. Its our objective for
them to understand things only continue to get more difficult if they dont change their path. We want
to give you time to change your path.
EM: Now the liberal opposition is likely to take office in South Korea, and the Chinese are obviously
opposed to that. My understanding, though, is that in addition to the North Koreans trying to send a
message complaining about U.S. military exercises, part of the reason that they deployed four missiles
at the same time was to practice beating missile defense systems. So, how do you get ahead of the
North Koreans, particularly when the Chinese and the next administration in South Korea want more
engagement and less of a military posturing?
RT: Well thats the point. Were not sure if we can get ahead of them. If they just continue, you know,
were headed to a place no one wants to be. And thats why the actions are tending to cause them to
pause and rethink the pathway youre on. Cause if they continue with their testing and continue the
development of both their weapons and their delivery systems, then were going to find ourselves in a
place thats even more dangerous than we are today.
EM: How danger
RT: And we dont want anyone to arrive at that destination.
[10:00]
EM: How dangerous is the place were in today? The State Department just announced that Joseph Yun
is on the way here for six days. Whats his mission? What are the next steps? How urgent is it right
now?
RT: Well, in terms of the urgency right now is to ensure that the regime of Pyongyang has heard the
message. Thats why weve tried to be very clear and succinct with the message, which is, first, we do
not intend to be a threat to you. We do not want to have a conflict with you. We want you to change
your direction. And we want others in the region to help us help them make a different decision. Thats
the first step. And then obviously that has to be backed up with action, so that they understand were
serious. And that means soliciting others to help us with that message and backing that message up to
North Korea: that you need to change directions.
EM: Which includes the Chinese. Now hours before we took off for Beijing, the President got onto
Twitter and said North Koreans are behaving badly and China has done little to help. So let me ask,
did you know that was coming? Was that an intentional youre shaking your head, no. So you dont
know if that was an intentional bargaining chip (RT: No) to set a table with the Chinese? Does it
complicate your mission this weekend?
RT: No, its consistent with the discussions I had with the president before I left on this trip. I had a
very good conversation with the president on the approach that I felt was necessary with North Korea,
including all of the parties that we think have to be a part of this. So, I did not know that he was going
to tweet anything out, but the message that he sent out was very consistent with the message that Ive
been delivering so far in Tokyo and in Seoul. And I dont think it will come as any surprise to the
Chinese government that we do not view that they have ever fully used all of the influence available to
them to cause the North Korean regime to rethink its pursuit of these weapons, and thats some of what
Ill be talking with the Chinese government about as well is, you know, they need to understand: what
are they willing to do? How far are they willing to go? Can this be an area of mutual cooperation
between two great powers to bring peace and stability to the Korean peninsula? And let's be great
powers. Lets denuclearize the peninsula. That has been Chinas stated policy for more than two
decades is a denuclearized Korean peninsula. They need to help solve this.
EM: So I assume then, that that is the number one thing that you want out of the Chinese. And I say
that because the U.S. has a lot of issues with the Chinese between trade, currency manipulation,
territorial expansion in the South China Sea, military modernization, the list goes on, human rights
violations. So in your mind, the number one thing, the non-negotiable thing is whatever you can get out
of the Chinese on a tougher approach to North Korea.
RT: No one issue defines the relationship between the U.S. and China. We will be talking about a broad
range of issues when Im in Beijing. But the threat of North Korea is imminent. And it has reached a
level that we are very concerned about the consequences of North Korea being allowed to continue on
this progress its been making on the development of both weapons and delivery systems. And its
reached a very alarming state to us. So it is getting a lot of discussion up front because its imminent.
We have a broad range of issues that define the relationship. This is but one. There are others, and you
listed them. All of them have their importance in the U.S.-China relationship, but this one as I said
just happens to have bubbled to the top because of the recent actions that have been taken by North
Korea.
EM: In diplomacy, obviously, you have to do some negotiating. What is the U.S. willing to give China
to get out of the relationship what you want?
RT: Well were not going to share with you any of what we might be talking about relative to things
that are important to China, things that are important to the U.S. And thats really something that,
before we get to that stage, weve got to have a higher level of dialogue between the two leaders of the
country between President Trump and President Xi to frame this overall relationship and frame
the dialogue itself. Again, the North Korea challenge has come to our door, not by anything weve
done. Its come to us because of what North Koreas done. Weve had no control over them. And it
requires immediate attention. But the overall China-U.S. relationship really needs better clarity that can
only be achieved by a meeting between our two leaders a face-to-face meeting and some time for
them to be together and some time for us to exchange views in a number of these areas whether
theyre economic or security or cultural and people-to-people how theres a whole array of issues to
be discussed. That will define the relationship. And theres nothing to be negotiated at this point until
we have a clear understanding of their priorities and they have a clear understanding of ours. And yes,
theres going to be differences. And well have to talk about how to resolve those differences or at least
how to live with those differences. Again, I want to set the North Korea issue over here to the side. It is
only occupying our attention right now because of the imminent circumstances. But I dont want
anyone to feel like that is going to define the relationship.
[16:00]
EM: Let me ask you how a human rights issue impacts this, which is that, as you probably know, China
has a policy of repatriating North Korean refugees. Im wondering if you think that China is in
violation of the UN convention on refugees, and if they should change that stance because it could shed
more light on whats going on in North Korea for the rest of the world.
RT: Well, that is one among several issues attached to North Korea, but also attached to a broader, I
think, view that we would want to take with China regarding treatment of people under that broad
category of human rights. The American peoples commitment to human rights and championing of
people the world over its embedded in everything we do. I never have viewed that it sits out here as
something to the side that we somehow have to deal with it separately. It really is a part of every policy
that were discussing, whether its economic or security or whatever the policy may be. Embedded in
all of those is always with us is the protection of people, advocating for peoples freedom, advocating
for a better life for others. That is just a part of the American values system that is part of every policy
discussion we have. So it will always be ever-present in our conversations with the Chinese.
EM: Going back to the relationship with China just one question on that for now which is, you
referred in your confirmation hearing to them at one point as a partner on one issue, as an ally on
another. Can you say whether or not China is a potential friend? Is it an adversary? Is it a global
competitor, a regional competitor? How do you define it now? And what do you want to define it as in
six months?
RT: Well, again, I think that requires more conversations by the two leaders and a greater understanding
from both sides as to their priorities, ours, their aspirations and ours. I do think were at somewhat of a
historic moment in the U.S.-China relationship. It has been defined for the past 40 years by the opening
of China, the Nixon-Kissinger visit. During that time, by and large, the U.S. and China have found a
way to exist together in this world, to deal with our conflicts. Weve never fought a war with each
other, other than on the Korean peninsula. Thats the only time weve fought a war with each other.
And even as Chinas country and economy have grown, and now occupies its place in the global
economy, we have always managed to exist with one another in a spirit of non-conflict. It doesnt mean
we dont have differences, but weve always found ways to either resolve them or to live with them.
Accept that we have differences and move on and still do whats in the best interest of our people, and
China in the best interest of theirs. But I do think because of what is happening globally with people in
the world over globalization itself that were at perhaps at an inflection point in the relationship
of global powers in general. And I do think that the Chinese and the U.S. need to have a fresh
conversation about what will define the relationship between the United States and China for the next
50 years. We can look back and see how successful weve been, 40 years of what I would say has been
a very successful relationship with two very powerful nations living with one another without conflict.
But now we find that there are issues arising that have gone unresolved. And I think how we are able to
talk about those and how we are able to chart our course forward is going to set, potentially, the
relationship in a new era of existing together without conflict, in an era of non-conflict. Again, it
doesnt mean we wont have differences, but we will find how are we going to live with one another for
the next 50 years. Because I think theres a question, perhaps even in the minds of the Chinese: How
will the American people, the Chinese people, live with each other in this world for the next half
century?
[20:43]
EM: Are you concerned about the message that you might be sending China by not taking a traveling
press pool with you into China, which restricts press access. Theres obviously been a lot of uproar
over press access to you, especially on this trip. Will you ever do this again?
RT: This what? You mean this where I dont take
EM: Yes.
RT: Look, its driven by a couple of things. Primarily its driven believe it or not, you wont believe
it were trying to save money. I mean, quite frankly, were saving a lot of money by using this
aircraft, which also flies faster, allows me to be more efficient, and were going to destinations that, by
and large, the media outlets have significant presence already, so were not hiding from any coverage
of what were doing. The fact that the press corps is not traveling on the plane with me, I understand
that there are two aspects of that. One, theres a convenience aspect. I get it. The other is, I guess, what
Im told is that theres this long tradition that the Secretary spends time on the plane with the press. I
dont know that Ill do a lot of that. Im just not thats not the way I tend to work. Thats not the way
I tend to spend my time. I spend my time working on this airplane. The entire time were in the air, Im
working. Because there is a lot of work to do in the early stages. Maybe things will change and evolve
in the future. But I hope people dont misunderstand ... theres nothing else behind it than those simple
objectives.
EM: I have heard the cost savings issue, but there has been such an uproar. Does that bother you or do
you take their message, especially, like I said, going into China and the restriction of the press there?
RT: Well, as I understand it, most major news outlets have presence in China. They have bureau offices.
They have people there. So its not like they cant cover whats happening there. The only thing thats
missing is the chance to talk more in the air.
EM: Well, thats
RT: Theres not going to be anything, in terms of access, visibility is what were doing, there isnt any
other, that I can see, theres nothing else to it.
EM: Right so your answer is you dont intend to change this model for your next trip.
RT: Its gonna be trip dependent. It doesnt mean we wont, but were gonna look at every trip in terms
of what my needs are. Look my ... First and foremost is what is my mission and why am I going? How
can I best accomplish that mission? Whats the most effective way for me to do that? Im not a big
media press access person. I personally dont need it. I understand its important to get the message of
what were doing out, but I also think theres only a purpose in getting the message out when theres
something to be done. And so we have a lot of work to do, and when were ready to talk about what
were trying to do, I will be available to talk to people. But doing daily availability, I dont have this
appetite or hunger to be that, have a lot of things, have a lot of quotes in the paper or be more visible
with the media. I view that the relationship that I want to have with the media, is the media is very
important to help me communicate not just to the American people, but to others in the world that are
listening. And when I have something important and useful to say, I know where everybody is and I
know how to go out there and say it. But if I dont because were still formulating and were still
deciding what were going to do, there is not going to be a lot to say. And I know that youve asked me
a lot of questions here that I didnt answer, and Im not answering them because we have some very,
very complex strategic issues to make our way through with important countries around the world, and
were not going to get through them by just messaging through the media. We get through them in face-
to-face meetings behind closed doors. We can be very frank, open, and honest with one another and
then well go out and well have something to share about that, but the truth of the matter is, all of the
tactics and all of the things were going to do you will know them after theyve happened.
EM: And I appreciate that, but there is another element to press access, which is accountability of U.S.
government officials, and one thing in particular that the media took note of over the past week was
this report that you had used an email alias at Exxon, and there has been some assumption of why you
did that in terms of talking about climate change outside of your normal email address, and hiding that
in some way and, given that one of your predecessors had serious email issues, obviously, I think the
press really took note of that story.
RT: The press needs to go ask Exxon Mobil about it and thats been answered. And it is a very simple
explanation but I dont work, I mean, but it came up in the course of some litigation or potential
litigation, I cant comment on it and I cant speak for Exxon Mobil either, so if you directed all
questions about it back to Exxon Mobil.
EM: Sure. Going forward though, I assume you wont be using a private server or an email alias as
secretary of state.
RT: I have two cell phones. One of them I call it my grandkids phone and the other one is Uncle Sam's
phone, and I carry them both with me and I try to make sure people dont get confused about which one
they are supposed to call me on or which one they are supposed to text me on. And when they do I try
to send them a message back to them say 'Dont text this one. This is my government phone, text it'
(inaudible).
Unknown: So your grandkids ask you stuff about the state department?
RT: No. It's the family and friends phone, and this Uncle Sam's phone.
EM: I gotcha. I gotcha. I can keep going.
Unknown: Oh no, youre all set.
EM: But I would like to talk further about all of your plans
RT: And I told RC Im happy to talk a little bit more on the flight home with you, as well. Look, I hope
people in the media are, I dont know how to explain it any better part of it is just the way my personal
style is, but also, Ive been very successful diplomatically for over 25 years. Done some really tough
deals around the world with some really difficult governments and Ive been successful because I was
always able to respect their integrity and respect the fact that they have a population they have to take
care of and the less I said about what we were trying to do in public, the easier it was for them to
manage the outcome, and in the end we could be successful. Theres a lot of those same elements of
what Im trying to do as the top diplomat for the United States government the difference being I
have a population that I have to take care of too now that Im accountable to, and I understand that very
well. So I think that I would hope that people can maintain their patience in these early days and
recognize Ive only been at it 6 weeks. Im on a major mission right now thats extraordinarily
important because of the imminent threat. I have others ahead of me. Im just now getting to the point
where I have we have our thinking formulated well enough that I think we can talk about some
things to the public. To talk about them before they are formulated isnt useful to anyone, most
importantly the people we are trying to get things done with.
EM: I hear you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.