portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

energy & nuclear | government | imperialism & war

Official Response of DPRK On "Nuclear Issue", and continued US Imperialist Aggression.

If our reasonable proposal is turned aside at the talks, we will
judge that the U.S. does not intend to give up its attempt to stifle the
DPRK by force at an appropriate time while persistently insisting the
DPRK "scrap its nuclear program first" to waste time.
In this case the DPRK can not dismantle its nuclear deterrent force
but will have no option but to increase it. Whether the nuclear issue
will be settled or not depends on the U.S. attitude
Keynote Speeches Made at Six-way Talks


Pyongyang, August 29 (KCNA) -- Heads of delegations to the six-way
talks on the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. made keynote
speeches at the talks opened in Beijing on August 27. Assistant State
Secretary James Kelly, head of the U.S. delegation, said that the U.S.
immediate purpose is to ensure that the north Korean nuclear program is
eliminated in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. He added
that the U.S. can discuss security assurances and political and economic
benefits only when the DPRK eliminates its nuclear weapons program
completely, verifiably and irreversibly.
Noting that the U.S. would not pursue the bilateral talks with the
DPRK for the solution to the nuclear issue, he said: Once the DPRK's
nuclear weapons program is eliminated, the U.S. is prepared to start
bilateral negotiations on a series of issues, including missiles,
conventional weapons, counterfeiting and drug smuggling, terrorism, human rights
and abduction. That would be aimed to normalize the bilateral
relations.
The conclusion of any non-aggression treaty is neither appropriate
nor necessary. The U.S. is, therefore, not interested in it. Once the
DPRK's verifiable and irreversible abandonment of the nuclear weapons
program is confirmed, the U.S. would be ready to discuss security
concerns with other countries at the next talks.
Kim Yong Il, vice-minister of Foreign Affairs, who is leading the
DPRK delegation to the six-way talks on the nuclear issue between the
DPRK and the U.S., in his keynote speech made clear the principled stand
on the settlement of the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S.
He said:
The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is the general goal of
the DPRK. It is not our goal to have nuclear weapons.
The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula was our initiative and
it is our consistent stand and the desire of all Koreans to realise it.
The U.S. is, however, standing in its way.
If the nuclear issue between the two countries is to be peacefully
settled through dialogue the U.S. should make a radical switchover in
its policy toward the DPRK.
This is a master key to and a precondition for the settlement of
the nuclear issue
The Bush administration openly disclosed its attempt to use nuclear
weapons after listing the DPRK as part of "an axis of evil" and a
target of a "preemptive nuclear attack."
This prompted us to judge that the Bush administration is going to
stifle our system by force and decide to build a strong deterrent force
to cope with it. Hence, we determined to possess that force. Our
deterrent force is not aimed to attack somebody without any proper reason. It
is a means for self-defence to protect our sovereignty.
We can dismantle our nuclear program if the U.S. makes a switchover
in its hostile policy towards us and does not pose any threat to us.
The benchmark for our judgement that the U.S. no longer antagonizes
us will be provided only when a non-aggression treaty is concluded
between the DPRK and the U.S., diplomatic relations opened between them and
the U.S. does not obstruct our economic dealing with other countries.
The non-aggression treaty called for by us is by no means to demand
"security assurances," but to have a non-aggression treaty with legal
biding force whereby both signatories commit themselves to
non-aggression.
The U.S. can not shirk its responsibility for having suspended the
implementation of the agreed framework.
We have fully fulfilled our commitment to freeze our nuclear
facility since the adoption of the agreed framework.
Kelly who came to the DPRK as a special envoy of President Bush in
October 2002, failing to present any specific "evidence", groundlessly
pulled us up, using coercive words and rudely behaving ignoring the
Oriental custom. He claimed that we have secretly pushed forward an
enriched uranium program in breach of the Agreed Framework.
In this regard we made it clear that we have no secret nuclear
program but we are entitled to have weapons more powerful than those based
on enriched uranium. We have powerful weapons, including single-hearted
unity. After Kelly's Pyongyang visit, the U.S. misled the public
opinion, saying that we admitted to the secret nuclear program and
unilaterally stopped the supply of heavy fuel oil from November, 2002.
The DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework concluded in October 1994 was thus
nullified due to the U.S. unilateral refusal to fulfil its commitments.
The DPRK has abided by the principle that the measures for settling
the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. should be implemented
by simultaneous actions.
These actions provide a realistic way of realizing the
denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
Any opposition to the simultaneous actions would mean opposing the
denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and, furthermore, can not be
construed otherwise than a revelation of an intention to disarm the DPRK
and swallow it up. "Early inspection" can never be accepted in any
case, he said, setting out our proposal for a package solution to the
nuclear issue and the order of simultaneous actions.
He further said:
For a package solution, the U.S. should conclude a non-aggression
treaty with the DPRK, establish diplomatic relations with it and
guarantee the economic cooperation between the DPRK and Japan and between the
north and the south of Korea. And it should also compensate for the
loss of electricity caused by the delayed provision of light water
reactors and complete their construction.
For this, the DPRK should not make nuclear weapons and allow the
nuclear inspection, finally dismantle its nuclear facility, put on ice
the missile testfire and stop its export.
According to the order of simultaneous actions, the U.S. should
resume the supply of heavy fuel oil, sharply increase the humanitarian
food aid while the DPRK should declare its will to scrap its nuclear
program.
According to this order, we will allow the refreeze of our nuclear
facility and nuclear substance and monitoring and inspection of them
from the time the U.S. has concluded a non-aggression treaty with the
DPRK and compensated for the loss of electricity.
We will settle the missile issue when diplomatic relations are
opened between the DPRK and the U.S. and between the DPRK and Japan.
And we will dismantle our nuclear facility from the time the LWRs
are completed.
Clarifying the principled stand of the DPRK on finding a solution
to the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S., our delegation would
like to advance the following proposal prompted by the desire to make
the six-way talks fruitful.
First, the DPRK and the U.S. should make clear their will to clear
up bilateral concerns.
The DPRK will clarify its will to dismantle its nuclear program if
the U.S. makes clear its will to give up its hostile policy toward the
DPRK.
Second, all the countries participating in the six-way talks should
agree on the principle to implement the measures for solving the
nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. through simultaneous actions.
If our reasonable proposal is turned aside at the talks, we will
judge that the U.S. does not intend to give up its attempt to stifle the
DPRK by force at an appropriate time while persistently insisting the
DPRK "scrap its nuclear program first" to waste time.
In this case the DPRK can not dismantle its nuclear deterrent force
but will have no option but to increase it. Whether the nuclear issue
will be settled or not depends on the U.S. attitude.
Chinese, Russian, south Korean and Japanese sides made keynote
remarks at the talks.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi, head of the Chinese
delegation, said the nuclear issue should be solved peacefully, adding that the
conclusion of a non-aggression treaty, peaceful co-existence and
normalization of relations with the U.S. and the establishment of economic
and trade relations with other countries proposed by the DPRK are a
positive, constructive, just and rational offer. He noted that the
conclusion of the non-aggression treaty should be settled through the DPRK-U.S.
direct talks and the issues of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula
and security concerns raised by the DPRK should be solved
simultaneously. It is important to achieve durable peace on the Korean peninsula by
establishing a peace mechanism on the peninsula with the peaceful
settlement of the nuclear issue as a momentum, and the denuclearization of
the Korean peninsula is favorable for protecting the fundamental
interests of the north and the south of Korea and the stable situation in
Northeast Asia, he said.
Russian Vice Foreign Minister Losyukov, head of the Russian
delegation, said an emergency measure is needed to defuse the tensions on the
Korean peninsula, noting that it is important to work out a "roadmap"
by incorporating each other's measures.
He noted that Russia is interested in ensuring denuclearization and
durable peace on the Korean peninsula and maintaining reliable security
for all the countries in the region and developing the mutually
beneficial cooperation.
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of south Korea Lee
Soo-Hyuck, head of the south Korean delegation, set out the "simultaneous
action order," promising to sincerely implement the June 15 North-South
Joint Declaration and continue the economic aid to the DPRK on the
basis of compatriotism and humanitarianism and noting the nuclear issue
should be comprehensively solved.
Department Director of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mitoji Yabunaka, head of the Japanese delegation, noted that it is
necessary to solve the missile and abduction issues in a comprehensive way
together with the nuclear issue.
Through the keynote remarks made by each delegation at the six-way
talks one may comment on the stance of each country as follows:
The DPRK reclarified its consistent stand that its goal is the
denuclearization and the guarantee of peace and security on the Korean
peninsula and comprehensively set out a clear orientation and specific ways
for the peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue including the
principle of simultaneous actions.
The DPRK set the goal of dropping its nuclear program from the time
the U.S. abandons its hostile policy towards the DPRK and advanced a
package solution and simultaneous action order, calling for implementing
all the measures to attain the goal on a phased basis on the principle
of simultaneous actions.
China, Russia and south Korea also referred to the package solution
and the way of simultaneous actions, urging the peaceful settlement of
the nuclear issue.
Japan took the attitude to use the six-way talks for meeting its
political interests, focusing on the abduction issue rather than the
settlement of the nuclear issue. The prevailing tone of the keynote remarks
is that it is imperative to achieve denuclearization and peace and
stability on the Korean peninsula, peacefully solve the nuclear issue and
to this end give a package solution to all issues of concerns between
the DPRK and the U.S. on a phased basis on the principle of simultaneous
actions.
But regrettably, the United States flatly refused such views.
The United States opposed the package solution and the principle of
simultaneous actions instead of expressing its will to make a practical
switchover in its policy.
It is the U.S. stand that only when the DPRK scraps its nuclear
program first the U.S. can discuss issues of security assurances and
economic aid and the issues of missile, conventional weapons, human rights
and other issues should be discussed if the DPRK wants to normalize the
relations with the U.S. even after it completely abandons its nuclear
program.
The United States said the next talks can take place only when the
DPRK expresses its intention to scrap its nuclear program.
In the final analysis, the U.S. would move only after the DPRK is
completely disarmed.
It is against common sense to raise such a demand to its
counterpart at the talks when the DPRK and the U.S. are standing in confrontation
with each other with arms and this raises a serious question as to its
true intention.
The DPRK cannot but interpret this otherwise than a U.S. intention
to invade it after it is disarmed.
It is a brigandish like demand beyond the tolerance limit.
It has become clearer through the six-way talks that the United
States is forcing the DPRK to disarm, while persistently pursuing its
hostile policy toward the DPRK.
In fact, the DPRK hoped that an agreement was reached between them
at the talks whereby the DPRK could be able to express its will to
scrap its nuclear program in return for the U.S. manifestation of its will
to make a policy switchover at least and the hard-won dialogue would go
on.
As such expectation was betrayed, it is not difficult to guess how
the DPRK will react to it.
By flatly refusing to exchange even words expressing the will to
make policy switchover, the United States put the prospect of the next
talks at peril.

homepage: homepage: http://www.kcna.co.jp