"Supporting Online Material: North Korean Nuclear Statements (2002-2010)", NAPSNet Special Reports, May 17, 2011, http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/supporting-online-material-north-korean-nuclear-statements-2002-2010/
Supporting Online Material: North Korean Nuclear Statements (2002-2010)
Peter Hayes and Scott Bruce
May 17, 2011
Nautilus invites your contributions to this forum, including any responses to this report.
II. Article by Peter Hayes and Scott Bruce
III. Nautilus invites your responses
This report is a collection of selected North Korean statements on their nuclear program. This material was assembled to support the report, “North Korean Nuclear Nationalism and the Threat of Nuclear War in Korea”
by Peter Hayes Professor, RMIT University and Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute and Scott Bruce, Nautilus Institute Director. These sources are meant to show the change in DPRK statements on its nuclear program between October 2002 and the present. Statements from the Korean Worker’s Party (KWP), Korean People’s Army (KPA), and DPRK Cabinet are labeled as such so that the distinctions between the views of these different institutions in the DPRK can be observed.
We invite our audience to send us other relevant statements that may compliment and expand this study.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Nautilus Institute. Readers should note that Nautilus seeks a diversity of views and opinions on significant topics in order to identify common ground.
II. Article by Peter Hayes and Scott Bruce
-“Supporting Online Material: North Korean Nuclear Statements (2002-2010)”
By Peter Hayes and Scott Bruce
- The Kelly Delegation Mission to Pyongyang in October 2002
1.1 (KWP) DPRK’s policy of national defence is for self-defence”, KCNA, September 26, 2002 3
1.2 (KWP) “Rodong Sinmun on DPRK armed forces”, KCNA, October 4, 2002
1.3 “Spokesman for DPRK FM on DPRK visit of special envoy of U.S. President” KCNA, October, 7, 2002
1.4 (KPA): “KCNA on DPRK-U.S. relations” KCNA, October 12, 2002
1.5 (KPA) “Spokesman for Panmunjom mission of KPA on issue of remains of dead U.S. soldiers”, KCNA, October 13, 2002
1.6 (Cabinet) “Conclusion of non-aggression treaty between DPRK and U.S. called for”, KCNA, October 25, 2002
1.7 (KWP) “Rodong Sinmun on army-based policy”, KCNA, October, 30, 2002
- The reaffirmation of Kim Il-Sung’s dying wish for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in June 2005
2.1 “Kim Jong Il Meets Hu Jintao’s Special Envoy”, KCNA, July 14, 2005
2.2 (KPA) “Spokesman for Panmunjom Mission of KPA Releases Statement”, KCNA 15, August 2005.
- The September 19th Joint Statement on the Six Party Talks in September 2005
3.1 “DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman Urges U.S. to Lift Financial Sanctions”, KCNA, March, 1, 2006
3.2 “DPRK Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman Urges U.S. to Lift Financial Sanctions against DPRK”, KCNA, January 10, 2006
3.3 (KWP) “U.S. Urged to Fulfill Its Commitments before Calling for Resumption of Six-Party Talks”, KCNA, January 4, 2006
- The Demand for a Light Water Reactor
4.1 “Spokesman for DPRK Foreign Ministry on Six-Party Talks”, KCNA, September 21, 2005
4.2 “DPRK Foreign Ministry; DPRK’s Stand on Six-Party Talks Reclarified”, KCNA, June 2, 2006
- The First DPRK Nuclear Test
5.1 “DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman on Its Missile Launches”, KCNA, July 7, 2006
5.2 (KPA) “National Meeting Marks Day of Victory in War”, KCNA, July 27, 2006
- The Agreement on Phase I actions to Support the September 2005 Agreement
6.1 “DPRK Foreign Ministry Refutes “Resolution of UN Security Council””, KCNA, July 18, 2006
6.2 “DPRK Foreign Ministry Clarifies Stand on New Measure to Bolster War Deterrent”, KCNA, October 4, 2006
6.3 “DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman on U.S. Moves Concerning Its Nuclear Test”, KCNA, October 12, 2006.
- Destruction of the Yongbyon Cooling Tower 21
7.1 “DPRK’s Consistent Principled Stand to Fight against All Forms of Terrorism Reiterated “, KCNA, November 9, 2007
7.2 (KWP) “U.S. One-sided Hardline Policy Denounced”, KCNA, February 9, 2008
7.3 (KPA) “KPA to Counter with Its Positive Retaliatory Blows Any Attempt to Stifle DPRK by Force of Arms”, KCNA, March 3, 2008
7.4 (KWP) “Moves of U.S., Japan and South Korea for “Triangular Military Alliance” under Fire”, KCNA, March 12, 2008
7.5 “DPRK Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman Blasts U.S. Delaying Tactics in Solution of Nuclear Issue”, KCNA, March 29, 2008
7.6 (KPA) “U.S. Cancellation of Its “Plan for Cutback” of Its Forces under Fire”, KCNA, Jun 9, 2008
7.7 “DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman on Implementation of Agreement Adopted by Six-Party Talks”, July 5, 2008
7.8 (Cabinet) “U.S. Escalated Military Provocations Accused”, KCNA, July 23, 2008.
7.9 “Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman on DPRK’s Decision to Suspend Activities to Disable Nuclear Facilities”, KCNA, August 27, 2008
- The Second Nuclear Test 28
8.1 “DPRK Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman Dismisses U.S. Wrong Assertion”, KCNA, January 17, 2009
8.2 (KPA) “KPA General Staff Spokesman Blasts Hostile Forces’ Anti-DPRK Racket”, KCNA, April 18, 2009
- Peace Treaties and Succession
9.1 (KPA) “US-S. Korean Moves to Bring down System in DPRK Warned”, March 26, 2010
9.2 “DPRK Foreign Ministry Declares Strong Counter- Measures against UNSC’s “Resolution 1874″”, KCNA, June 13, 2009
9.3 “DPRK Issues Foreign Ministry ‘Memorandum’ 21 Apr on Denuclearization of Korean Peninsula”, KCNA, April 21, 2010.
- The Kelly Delegation Mission to Pyongyang in October 2002
1.1 “(KWP) DPRK’s policy of national defence is for self-defence”,
KCNA, September 26, 2002
Pyongyang, September 26 (KCNA) — The DPRK’s policy of national defence is for self-defence as it abides by the principle of self-defence based on the Juche idea and its self-defensive nature and mission will remain unchanged in the future, too, says Rodong Sinmun today in a signed article. It goes on:
Kim Jong Il clarified the nature, essence and the validity of the DPRK’s policy of national defence in answers given to questions raised by the president of the Kyodo News Service of Japan.
It is of special importance for the Korean people to increase national defence capacity because the country remains divided and it is standing in direct confrontation with U.S. imperialism, boss of world imperialism.
The DPRK’s national defence power is for self-defense and intended to defend the country, socialism, the security, life and property of its people from imperialist invasion.
The right of self-defence is vital to the DPRK and Korean-style socialism is the life and soul of its people.
It is an unshakable will of its people to defend and advance Korean-style socialism. This is the exercise of the right to national self-determination and right of option recognized by the un.
The DPRK does not hide the fact that it has developed self-reliant defence industry and increased capacity for self-defence on the principle of attaching primary importance to the army.
It is the most important state affair for the country to increase its own national defence power so as to protect the destiny of the people in a responsible manner to the last.
The DPRK has defended the basic interests of revolution and the dignity and security of the country, resolutely countering the imperialists’ vicious moves to stifle the DPRK, because it has built up strong national power for self-defence.
The DPRK’s armed forces are merciless to those who provoke it.
But, it does not use force against those who do not infringe upon it. If a country is friendly to the DPRK, after dropping hostility toward it, there is no need for the country to worry about the DPRK’s increased national defence power.
1.2 “(KWP) “Rodong Sinmun on DPRK armed forces”
, KCNA, October 4, 2002
Pyongyang, October 4 (KCNA) — The DPRK armed forces firmly defending the Korean revolution have grown to be powerful revolutionary armed forces, an indestructible fortress of socialism, says Rodong Sinmun on Friday in a signed article. It goes on:
The principle of the DPRK revolutionary armed forces governing their military activities for self-defence will remain unchanged in the future, too.
The step to build up its armed forces, pursuant to its policy of self-defence never poses any threat to others but contributes to the human cause of peace, proceeding from its mission and aim.
No matter what others may say, the DPRK will further strengthen the revolutionary armed forces to prevent any formidable enemies from recklessly attacking it.
The work of attaching importance to the military affair and strengthening the armed forces should not be neglected even a moment. If neglected, it will be impossible to defend the country from aggressors and escape from slavery, much less protecting the revolution.
The Korean Peninsula has remained divided into the north and the south for over half a century due to the separatists, the aggressors, and the DPRK and the U.S. are technically at war.
The U.S. is contemplating about the use of even nuclear weapons against the DPRK after singling out it as part of an “axis of evil” and a target of a nuclear attack. This compels the DPRK to further increase its capability for self-defence. The Korean people do not want humiliating and slavery-imposing peace even if they may die.
The DPRK army-based policy is the most powerful political mode in the era of the army-centred policy.
The DPRK will in the future, too, energetically push ahead with the work to strengthen the self-defensive armed forces in every way under the uplifted banner of independence, peace and socialism, so as to firmly defend the sovereignty of the country, socialism and peace and achieve the nation’s prosperity and progress.
1.3 “Spokesman for DPRK FM on DPRK visit of special envoy of U.S. President”
KCNA, October, 7, 2002
Pyongyang, October 7 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK today gave the following answers to questions put by KCNA as regards the visit to the DPRK by a special envoy of the U.S. President: As already reported, James Kelly, U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, visited the DPRK from October 3 to 5 in the capacity of special envoy of the U.S. President.
Expecting that there would be a way of solving the pending issues between the DPRK and the U.S. through dialogue as the Bush administration told us that it would dispatch the special envoy in a bid to explain its Korea policy and stand toward the resumption of dialogue, we received him and heard his words.
However, the special envoy, raising “issues of concern”, took a high handed and arrogant attitude by claiming, that the DPRK-Japan relations and inter-Korean relations as well as the DPRK-U.S. relations would be smoothly settled only when the DPRK first meets the U.S. unilateral demand such as nuclear and missile and conventional armed forces and “human rights” issue.
The U.S.-raised “issues of concern” are nothing but a product of its hostile policy towards the DPRK.
After all, the special envoy’s explanation made it clear that the Bush administration is pursuing not a policy of dialogue but a hardline policy of hostility to bring the DPRK to its knees by force and highhanded practice.
Since it has been confirmed that the Bush administration refuses to delist the DPRK as a member of the “axis of evil” and a target of “its preemptive nuclear attack” and still maintains its unilateral hardline policy of hostility towards the DPRK, the latter clarified to the envoy its principled stand towards such position before his departure from here.
Such unchanged policy of the U.S. compels the DPRK to take all necessary countermeasures, pursuant to the army-based policy whose validity has been proven.
1.4 (KPA): “KCNA on DPRK-U.S. relations”
KCNA, October 12, 2002
Pyongyang, October 12 (KCNA) — As already reported, James Kelly, special envoy of the U.S. President, visited the DPRK from October 3 to 5. In this regard, the U.S. authorities and some media are now floating stories that Kelly expressed to the DPRK “the will of the United States to solve concerns through dialogue” and he had “frank exchange of views” with it.
This is sheer misinformation intended to escape public denunciation of the already disclosed arrogant attitude of the United States.
Stark facts proved that Kelly’s visit to the DPRK was aimed to foist upon the DPRK the U.S. unilateral demand of nature quite different from dialogue in a bid to bring it to its knees.
As the Bush administration told the DPRK that it would dispatch a special envoy to explain its DPRK policy and stand toward the resumption of dialogue, Pyongyang received him, expecting that there would be a way of solving the pending issues between the DPRK and the U.S. through dialogue.
This time the special envoy had no intention to discuss the issue of resuming dialogue and did not make any mention of dialogue.
The special envoy straightforwardly and frankly spelled out the U.S “concerns” in a bid to disarm the DPRK.
In this sense what he said during his visit may be considered to be frank. For the DPRK, it was a good occasion to correctly understand the U.S. intention.
But what matters is the fact that he made very arrogant and threatening remarks that if North Korea did not take any action first to solve the concerns about security there would be neither dialogue nor improved relations and the DPRK-Japan relations and inter-Korean relations would collapse.
The special envoy’s visit to Pyongyang confirmed the fact that the U.S. administration keeps pursuing a hardline hostile policy aimed to bring the DPRK to its knees by force and high-handed practice.
This policy only causes the people’s army and people of the DPRK to be more vigilant against the U.S.
It compels the DPRK to take every necessary counter-measure, pursuant to the army-based policy whose validity has been proved.
The prospect of the DPRK-U.S. relations depends on the U.S. attitude.
1.5 (KPA) “Spokesman for Panmunjom mission of KPA on issue of remains of dead U.S. soldiers”
, KCNA, October 13, 2002
Pyongyang, October 13 (KCNA) –A spokesman for the Panmunjom mission of the Korean People’s Army on Saturday gave the following answer to the question raised by KCNA as regards the joint exhumation of remains of dead U.S. soldiers in the DPRK: Two rounds of exhumation were carried out from July 20 to September 24, 2002 according to the agreement reached at the DPRK-U.S. working talks on remains of the dead held in Bangkok, Thailand in June and the third round of exhumation is now under way.
Even under the circumstances where the DPRK-U.S. relations remain strained, we unilaterally exhumed remains of 208 dead bodies and handed them over to the U.S. side with generosity and sincerity from a humanitarian point of view from 1990 to 1994 and have unearthed remains of 170 bodies together with the U.S. side since 1996, handing remains of a total of 378 bodies to it up to this date.
Nearly half a century has passed since the cease-fire of the Korean War and remains of the war dead were eroded and most of the witnesses who could confirm their burial places died. Under these conditions it is necessary to investigate and confirm the burial places quickly.
At the recent talks on remains of U.S. war dead in Thailand we, therefore, presented reasonable and realistic proposals including the question of establishing and operating a national organization for investigation to the U.S. side.
The U.S. administration’s hostile policy toward the DPRK has touched off bitterer anti-U.S. sentiment among the Korean people, which seriously impedes the exhumation of remains of the war dead, including the investigation and confirmation of the burial places.
There are no American “war survivors,” the issue raised by the U.S. side since all the U.S. Pows were already repatriated in accordance with the agreement between the two sides right after the Korean War. And the issue of Americans who defected to our side from U.S. forces units stationed in South Korea after the war may be smoothly settled depending on the termination of the hostile relationship between the DPRK and the U.S. as it is not contrary to the international law on political exiles and the right to protect them.
If the U.S. side is really interested in the exhumation of remains of the war dead, it should sincerely do what it has to do.
1.6 (Cabinet) “Conclusion of non-aggression treaty between DPRK and U.S. called for”
, KCNA, October 25, 2002
Pyongyang, October 25 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea today released a statement as regards the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. He said:
New dramatic changes have taken place in the situation on the Korean Peninsula and the rest of Northeast Asia in the new century. Inter-Korean relations and the DPRK’s relations with Russia, China and Japan have entered a new important phase and bold measures have been taken to reconnect inter-Korean railroads which have remained cut for over half a century, settle the past with Japan and do away with the leftovers of the last century.
The DPRK has taken a series of new steps in economic management and adopted one measure after another to reenergize the economy, including the establishment of a special economic region, in conformity with the changed situation and specific conditions of the country.
These developments practically contribute to peace in Asia and the rest of the world.
Almost all the countries except for the United States, therefore, welcomed and hailed them, a great encouragement to the DPRK.
It was against this backdrop that the DPRK recently received a special envoy of the U.S. President in the hope that this might help fundamentally solve the hostile relations with the U.S. and settle outstanding issues on an equal footing.
Regretfully, the Pyongyang visit of the special envoy convinced the DPRK that the hostile attempt of the Bush administration to stifle the DPRK by force and backpedal the positive development of the situation in the Korean Peninsula and the rest of Northeast Asia has gone to the extremes.
Producing no evidence, he asserted that the DPRK has been actively engaged in the enriched uranium program in pursuit of possessing nuclear weapons in violation of the DPRK-U.S. agreed framework. He even intimidated the DPRK side by saying that there would be no dialogue with the U.S. unless the DPRK halts it, and the DPRK-Japan, and north-south relations would be jeopardized.
The U.S. attitude was so unilateral and high-handed that the DPRK was stunned by it.
The U.S. is seriously mistaken if it thinks such a brigandish attitude reminding one of a thief crying “stop the thief” would work on the DPRK.
As far as the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is concerned, it cropped up as the U.S. has massively stockpiled nuclear weapons in South Korea and its vicinity and threatened the DPRK, a small country, with those weapons for nearly half a century, pursuing a hostile policy toward it in accordance with the strategy for world supremacy.
The DPRK-U.S. agreed framework was adopted in October 1994, but the U.S. has been deprived of the right to talk about the implementation of the framework since then.
Under article 1 of the framework the U.S. is obliged to provide light water reactors to the DPRK by the year 2003 in return for the DPRK’s freezing of graphite moderated reactors and their related facilities.
But only site preparation for the LWR was made though 8 years have passed since the DPRK froze its nuclear facilities.
This will bring the DPRK an annual loss of 1,000 mw(e) in 2003 when light water reactor no.1 is scheduled to be completed and that of 2,000 mw(e) from the next year under article 2 of the framework the two sides are obliged to move toward full normalization of the political and economic relations. Over the last 8 years, however, the U.S. has persistently pursued the hostile policy toward the DPRK and maintained economic sanctions on it. The former has gone the length of listing the latter as part of the “axis of evil.”
Under article 3 of the framework the U.S. is obliged to give formal assurances to the DPRK against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. however, the U.S. listed the DPRK as a target of its preemptive nuclear attack.
Under article 4 of the framework and paragraph g of its confidential minute the DPRK is to allow nuclear inspections only after the “delivery of essential non-nuclear components for the first LWR unit, including turbines and generators” is completed. But, the U.S. has already come out with a unilateral demand for nuclear inspection in a bid to convince the international community of the DPRK’s violation of the framework.
This compelled the DPRK to make public the confidential minute for the first time.
The U.S. has, in the final analysis, observed none of the four articles of the framework.
It is only the U.S. that can know whether it had willingness to implement the framework when it was adopted or put a signature to it without sincerity, calculating that the DPRK would collapse sooner or later.
However, the Bush administration listed the DPRK as part of the “axis of evil” and a target of the U.S. preemptive nuclear strikes. This was a clear declaration of a war against the DPRK as it totally nullified the DPRK-U.S. joint statement and agreed framework.
In the long run, the Bush administration has adopted it as its policy to make a preemptive nuclear strike at the DPRK. Such moves, a gross violation of the basic spirit of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, reduced the inter-Korean joint declaration on denuclearization to a dead document.
Its reckless political, economic and military pressure is most seriously threatening the DPRK’s right to existence, creating a grave situation on the Korean Peninsula.
Nobody would be so naive as to think that the DPRK would sit idle under such situation.
That was why the DPRK made itself very clear to the special envoy of the U.S. President that the DPRK was entitled to possess not only nuclear weapon but any type of weapon more powerful than that so as to defend its sovereignty and right to existence from the ever-growing nuclear threat by the U.S.
The DPRK, which values sovereignty more than life, was left with no other proper answer to the U.S. behaving so arrogantly and impertinently.
The DPRK has neither need nor duty to explain something to the U.S. seeking to attack it if it refuses to disarm itself.
Nevertheless, the DPRK, with greatest magnanimity, clarified that it was ready to seek a negotiated settlement of this issue on the following three conditions: Firstly, if the U.S. recognizes the DPRK’s sovereignty, secondly, if it assures the DPRK of nonaggression and thirdly, if the U.S. does not hinder the economic development of the DPRK.
Nowadays, the U.S. and its followers assert that negotiations should be held after the DPRK puts down its arms. This is a very abnormal logic.
Then, how can the DPRK counter any attack with empty hands?
Their assertion is little short of demanding the DPRK yield to pressure, which means death.
Nobody can match anyone ready to die. This is the faith and will of the army and people of the DPRK determined to remain true to the army-based policy to the last.
The position of the DPRK is invariable. The DPRK considers that it is a reasonable and realistic solution to the nuclear issue to conclude a nonaggression treaty between the DPRK and the U.S. if the grave situation of the Korean Peninsula is to be bridged over.
If the U.S. legally assures the DPRK of nonaggression, including the nonuse of nuclear weapons against it by concluding such treaty, the DPRK will be ready to clear the former of its security concerns.
The settlement of all problems with the DPRK, a small country, should be based on removing any threat to its sovereignty and right to existence.
There may be negotiations or the use of deterrent force to be consistent with this basis, but the DPRK wants the former, as far as possible.
1.7 (KWP) “Rodong Sinmun on army-based policy”
, KCNA, October, 30, 2002
Pyongyang, October 30 (KCNA) — Rodong Sinmun today in a signed commentary says the DPRK’s proposal for adopting a non-aggression treaty between the DPRK and the U.S. is a revelation of the noble patriotic will to safeguard the destiny of the country and the nation from aggression of the foreign forces and it is based on the might of the invincible army-based policy. The commentary notes:
Our holding high the banner of the army-based policy was an option to defend national sovereignty and the right to existence against the U.S. imperialists’ undisguised aggression moves.
It was thanks to the DPRK’s army-based policy that the untimely danger of war on the Korean Peninsula could be removed and the whole nation, north and south, could escape nuclear disasters.
It is the due obligation of the whole nation to uphold the great beneficial army-based policy in the present rigorous situation.
The policy is, indeed, a powerful political mode of defending the nation, which all the compatriots in the north, the south and abroad should follow and uphold.
Any Korean who is really concerned about the destiny of the country and the nation should positively support the policy which guarantees peace on the Korean Peninsula and the security of the nation and allow no challenge to it.
2. The reaffirmation of Kim Il-Sung’s dying wish for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in June 2005
2.1 “Kim Jong Il Meets Hu Jintao’s Special Envoy”
, KCNA, July 14, 2005
Pyongyang, July 13 (KCNA) — Kim Jong Il, general secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea and chairman of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK, Wednesday met Tang Jiaxuan, councilor of the State Council of China who is special envoy of Chinese President Hu Jintao. Present there were Kim Yang Gon, councilor of the NDC of the DPRK, and Wu Donghe, Chinese ambassador e.p. to the DPRK.
Tang Jiaxuan conveyed Hu Jintao’s verbal personal message and kind regards of leading officials of the Chinese party and state to Kim Jong Il.
Hu Jintao in his message said that the party and government of China set greatest store by the traditional Sino-DPRK friendship and join efforts with the Korean party and government to deepen the friendship and cooperation in various fields and bring about steady new progress in the Sino-DPRK relations.
Hu Jintao appreciated the precious contribution made by Kim Jong Il and the Korean party and government for an early resumption of the six-party talks and said that China would continue to support the key role to be played by the Korean side in seeking a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue.
He hoped that both China and the DPRK would keep the close exchange of views and cooperation and make joint efforts to bring about substantial progress at the six-party talks so as to protect the common interests of the two sides.
Kim Jong Il expressed thanks for the verbal personal message of Hu Jintao and asked Tang Jiaxuan to convey his regards to Hu Jintao and other leading officials of the Chinese party and state before having a cordial and friendly conversation with Tang.
Kim Jong Il expressed gratitude to the Chinese party and government for having exerted efforts for the resumption of the six-party talks.
Kim Jong Il said that the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula was the behest of President Kim Il Sung, adding that it is the DPRK’s consistent stand to seek a negotiated peaceful solution of the nuclear issue.
Kim Jong Il hoped that the six-party talks would be resumed as scheduled and positive progress be made at the talks.
He stressed that the DPRK would join efforts with China to positively boost the DPRK-China relations at a new stage of development as required by the new century. There was an in-depth exchange of views on boosting the exchange of high-level delegations between the two countries and a series of other issues of common concern. That day Tang Jiaxuan presented a gift to Kim Jong Il.
2.2 (KPA) “Spokesman for Panmunjom Mission of KPA Releases Statement
”, KCNA 15, August 2005.
Pyongyang, August 13 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the Panmunjom Mission of the Korean People’s Army Saturday issued the following statement in connection with the U.S. forces’ projected joint military exercise “Ulji Focus Lens-05” in south Korea: The U.S. forces side on Aug. 10 was so arrogant as to inform the DPRK side of its plan to stage joint military exercise in south Korea from Aug. 22 to Sept. 2. The projected military exercise is a large-scale war exercise in the true sense of the word as it will be participated in by the U.S. forces present in south Korea and huge reinforcements from the U.S. mainland and overseas and hundreds of thousands of south Korean troops. It is in wanton violation of the preamble and the Paragraph 13 c and d of the Armistice Agreement.
The planned joint war maneuver assumes increasingly grave nature as it is scheduled to take place at a time when the U.S. has carried out the relocation of its forces in south Korea after working out a new operation plan for preemptive attack on the DPRK and a vast “arms buildup plan” that called for spending 13 billion US dollars is being implemented at its final phase.
Multi-faceted dialogue is making brisk headway between the north and the south and the enthusiasm of all Koreans to wipe out the long-standing misunderstanding and distrust and promote the process of reconciliation and cooperation through it is running high on the Korean Peninsula in hearty response to the slogan of “By our nation itself,” guided by the spirit of the June 15 joint declaration and the six-party talks for a peaceful solution of the nuclear issue are in high gear. This large-scale saber rattling to be staged against the DPRK against this backdrop is nothing but a gross violation of peace as it stuns the world and infuriates its people.
It is not hard to guess what the U.S. side seeks through this war drill. Its brigandish aim is to wind up its preparations for preemptive attack on the DPRK and drive the situation on the peninsula to an extreme pitch of tension in a bid to block the positive process of reconciliation and cooperation between the north and the south and force the DPRK to accept the unjust demands raised by the U.S. at the six-party talks.
It is quite unjustifiable for the U.S. side to stage a provocative war exercise under the simulated conditions of an all-out war against the DPRK with huge forces and the latest war hardware involved.
The U.S. side’s arrogant action only bars the KPA from expecting anything from the dialogue with the U.S. and reinforces its correct judgment that it is the only way of defending the country and its sovereignty and system to build up deterrence for self-defence.
The KPA side is fully ready to respond to a war in kind any time.
It will closely follow the U.S. side’s war exercise with a high degree of vigilance and take a prompt decisive countermeasure, once deemed necessary.