Supporting Online Material: North Korean Nuclear Statements (2002-2010)

You are here: Home » NAPSNet » Special Reports » Supporting Online Material: North Korean Nuclear Statements (2002-2010)

NAPSNet Special Report

Recommended Citation

"Supporting Online Material: North Korean Nuclear Statements (2002-2010)", NAPSNet Special Reports, May 17, 2011, https://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.

——————–

 

CONTENTS

 

I. Introduction 

II. Article by Peter Hayes and Scott Bruce

III. Nautilus invites your responses

  

I. Introduction

 

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

 

Contents

 

  1. 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
  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
    2.2  (KPA) “Spokesman for Panmunjom Mission of KPA Releases Statement”, KCNA 15, August 2005.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.

 

 

  1. 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.

 

3. 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 

 

    Pyongyang, February 28 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK Tuesday gave the following answer to the question raised by KCNA blasting the U.S. for persistently floating far-fetched assertion that the DPRK counterfeited U.S. dollars without producing any evidence: Of late officials of the U.S. administration claimed as regards the U.S. financial sanctions against the DPRK that it should halt all its “illegal activities” in practice, it should “produce the copperplate used for counterfeiting notes” and sanctions are part of the measures for “frustrating” the nuke development. 

 

    As we have clarified more than once, such illegal dealings as “money laundering” and “counterfeit notes” have nothing in common with the policy of the DPRK and such assertion of the U.S. is nothing but a fabrication solely intended to tarnish the image of the DPRK and do harm to it. 

 

    It is the height of folly for them to assert that the above-said sanctions are aimed to “cut off the very source of funds for the development of nukes”. We manufactured nuclear weapons with our own technology, funds and raw materials from A to Z. As we are not dependent on the U.S. at all in the economic and financial fields, no U.S. sanctions would work on us. 

 

    We attach importance to the lift of the financial sanctions against us because this issue serves as a yardstick showing whether the U.S. is willing to drop its hostile policy towards the DPRK as it had committed itself in the joint statement adopted at the six-party talks or not. 

 

    As far as our dealing in U.S. dollars is concerned, this was forced upon us by the U.S. itself. By nature the DPRK wanted to join the international financial system to have normal banking transactions, but it was prevented from doing so by the U.S. obstructions. The U.S. has completely barred us from having normal financial transactions such as remittance of dollars to banks and settlement by credit cards, universally recognized means of financial transactions, and indiscriminately seized funds coming to and going out from our bank accounts. 

 

    Under this situation the DPRK had no other choice but to deal in cash. Nevertheless, the U.S. has described paying on account the money the DPRK earned through normal trade as “laundering of money gained by illegal means”. And it has talked nonsense that “fake dollars”, which may be found in the course of cash transactions, were issued and circulated by the DPRK. Even some of its allies have contended that such argument is incredible as it has no sufficient evidence. 

 

    The U.S. argument is quite childish and nonsensical. This was evidenced by the fact that the U.S. cited even the incoherent vituperation let loose by unidentified persons in a bid to make its fabrication sound plausible. 

 

    After all, all this made the DPRK a victim of the issue and circulation of counterfeit notes. 

 

    The responsibility for the present situation rests with the U.S. seeking to force the DPRK to “abandon its nuclear program first” through an anti-DPRK financial policy. We have already told the U.S. side that we were ready to cooperate in the efforts to settle the issue of “fake dollars”, a worldwide trouble, and urged it not to bar the DPRK from participating in the normal international financial activities but cooperate with it. If the U.S. is truly interested in the protection of its currency, it should stop such reckless act as linking the issue of “fake dollars” with the DPRK in a far-fetched manner, lift financial embargo on the DPRK at an early date and opt for mutual cooperation in normal banking transaction. It would be the best policy for the U.S. The U.S. escalated moves to isolate and blockade the DPRK would only further increase the might of the single-minded unity of our people around the supreme headquarters.

 

3.2  “DPRK Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman Urges U.S. to Lift Financial Sanctions against DPRK”, KCNA, January 10, 2006

 

    Pyongyang, January 9 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry today gave the following answer to a question put by KCNA as regards the U.S. claim that its financial sanctions against the DPRK have nothing to do with the six-party talks: Recently officials of the U.S. administration vied with each other to make remarks intended to mislead public opinion concerning its financial sanctions against the DPRK. They asserted that these sanctions are a separate issue from the six-party talks, that north Korea’s stand toward the issue is a pretext for delaying the talks and that the issue is not a subject of negotiation and it would be all right if the party who conducted illegal acts stop such doing for itself. 

 

    The financial sanctions against the DPRK are an issue directly related to the six-party talks. This is quite understandable to anyone, if he has elementary thinking ability. It is only the United States that pretends not to know about this. 

 

    As far as the six-party talks are concerned, they are aimed at realizing the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. So what is essential here is for the DPRK and the U.S. to move to fulfill their commitments to the denuclearization of the peninsula. 

 

    The nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula surfaced because of the hostile policy pursued by the U.S. towards the DPRK, negating its ideology and system while forcing America’s ideology and system upon it. Therefore, the key to solving the issue is for the U.S. to renounce its hostile policy towards the DPRK and opt for co-existence with the latter. 

 

    That is why the joint statement of the six-party talks clarifies the principle that the DPRK and the U.S. should respect each other and co-exist in peace with a view to denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. 

 

    However, the U.S. is applying financial sanctions against the DPRK in an effort to destroy the system in the DPRK by stopping its blood from running. This act is, therefore, in gross violation of the principle of mutual respect and peaceful co-existence laid down in the joint statement. Worse still, such sanctions were imposed upon the DPRK while the six-party talks were under way. 

 

    Bush and high-ranking officials of the U.S. came out one after another to let loose such outcries as “tyranny” and “criminal state”. The U.S. only talked about such sanctions before, but after the adoption of the joint statement it put them into practice, pursuing a harsher hostile policy towards the DPRK than ever before. 

 

    Is there any need to have talks under the situation where the U.S. is enforcing such policy? Even if any agreement is reached between the parties concerned, it is likely to be overturned by a person in high authority of the U.S. So, how can such a serious issue as the abandonment of the nuclear program be discussed freely? 

 

    Under the present situation it is illogical to discuss with the U.S., the assailant, the issue of dismantling the nuclear deterrent built up by the DPRK for self-defence. 

 

    This being a hard reality, can the U.S. still claim that its financial sanctions against the DPRK are a separate issue from the six-party talks? After all, the U.S. assertion only betrayed its intention to keep pursuing its hostile policy towards the DPRK regardless of the six-party talks and shift the blame for the stalled talks on to the latter. 

 

    It is an utterly brigandish logic for the U.S. to claim that the financial sanctions are not a subject of negotiation and it would be all right if the party who conducted illegal acts stops such doing for itself. 

 

    We examined the information the U.S. side provided to us, claiming that it was the motive of its application of sanctions. Such things cited by it, however, have never happened in our country. 

 

    Various countries and media, too, commented that the information cited by the U.S. at a “press briefing” lacked credibility. 

 

    Such being hard facts, the U.S. has persistently refused to negotiate with the DPRK while floating baseless fictions which nobody believes. Had the U.S. imposed the above-said sanctions upon the DPRK on the basis of scientific data or facts, there would have been no reason for it to refuse to sit at the negotiating table with the DPRK with a view to probing the truth in a fair and square way. 

 

    The U.S. should lift the sanctions, an obstacle to the six-party talks, and come out for the talks, if it is truly interested in the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and hopes for the progress of the talks.

 

3.3 (KWP) “U.S. Urged to Fulfill Its Commitments before Calling for Resumption of Six-Party Talks”, KCNA, January 4, 2006 

 

    Pyongyang, January 3 (KCNA) — The United States is chiefly to blame for having blocked the resumption of the six-party talks. The U.S. would be well advised to fulfill its commitments before asking someone to come out for the talks. This would be a practical measure for the resumption of the talks. Rodong Sinmun Tuesday says this in a signed commentary. It goes on: 

 

    The U.S. only insists that the DPRK should come out for the talks as early as possible. This is, however, nothing but sophism intended to escape the daily increasing criticism and condemnation of the international community and defy its just demand. 

 

    The U.S. sanctions and pressure prevented the DPRK from going to the talks and the former has made dastardly efforts to shift the responsibility for this on to the DPRK. 

 

    The U.S. is escalating its pressure upon the DPRK, floating the misinformation that the September 19 joint statement stipulates only the commitments to be honored by the DPRK. The U.S. wanton violation and distortion of the joint statement have further strained the hostile relations between the DPRK and the U.S., far from opening the bilateral ties of confidence, and rendered the prospect of the talks gloomy. 

 

    The U.S. should, first of all, lift its sanctions against the DPRK, the main factor of scuttling the talks, before talking about the resumption of the talks. The prospect of the resumption of the talks entirely depends on the U.S. behavior.

 

4. The Demand for a Light Water Reactor

 

4.1 “Spokesman for DPRK Foreign Ministry on Six-Party Talks”, KCNA, September 21, 2005

 

    Pyongyang, September 20 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry issued a statement in connection with the close of the fourth six-party talks. Its full text reads as follows: 

   

 Statement of a Spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 

 

    The second phase of the fourth six-party talks on the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. that opened in Beijing on Sept. 13, drawing the attention of the international community, closed on Sept. 19. 

 

    The talks that started on the DPRK’s positive initiative in August 2003 were held several times for the last more than two years, repeatedly going through twists and turns. 

 

    The talks, however, repeatedly proved fruitless and unproductive due to the conflicting stands among the parties concerned, contrary to the unanimous expectation of the international community toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We have approached the talks with magnanimity, patience and sincerity, proceeding from the principled, fair and aboveboard stand to achieve the general goal of the denuclearization of the peninsula at any cost. As a result, we have at last succeeded in meeting all these challenges, making it possible to agree on the joint statement, “verbal commitments”. 

 

    The joint statement reflects our consistent stand on the settlement of the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. and, at the same time, the commitments of the U.S. and south Korea responsible for denuclearizing the whole of the peninsula. As already known, the issue over which the DPRK and the U.S. have had most serious differences in the “verbal commitments” to denuclearize the peninsula so far was the issue of the former’s right to nuclear activity for a peaceful purpose, to be specific, the issue of the U.S. provision of light water reactors (LWR) to the former. It was due to these differences that the first phase of the fourth talks held in August last was compelled to go into recess without yielding any desired fruits. The present U.S. administration, denying in principle the DPRK the right to nuclear activity for a peaceful purpose which pertains to an independent right of a sovereign state, insisted that it could not provide LWRs in any case under the pretext that the DPRK pulled out of the NPT and is no longer member of the IAEA. Opposing this wrong stand of the U.S., we made it clear that the basis of finding a solution to the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. is to wipe out the distrust historically created between the two countries and a physical groundwork for building bilateral confidence is none other than the U.S. provision of LWRs to the DPRK. We strongly demanded that the U.S. remove the very cause that compelled the DPRK to withdraw from the NPT by providing LWRs to it. 

 

    At the talks, all the parties concerned except the U.S. supported the discussion of the issue of respecting the DPRK’s right to nuclear activity for a peaceful purpose and providing LWRs to it. 

 

    This time the U.S. delegation got in touch with Washington several times under the pressure of the trend of the situation and had no option but to withdraw its assertion. The six-parties agreed to take harmonious measures to implement phase by phase the points agreed on in the joint statement in accordance with the principle of “action for action” in the days ahead. 

 

    As clarified in the joint statement, we will return to the NPT and sign the Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA and comply with it immediately upon the U.S. provision of LWRs, a basis of confidence-building, to us. 

 

    As already clarified more than once, we will feel no need to keep even a single nuclear weapon if the DPRK-U.S. relations are normalized, bilateral confidence is built and we are not exposed to the U.S. nuclear threat any longer. 

 

    What is most essential is, therefore, for the U.S. to provide LWRs to the DPRK as early as possible as evidence proving the former’s substantial recognition of the latter’s nuclear activity for a peaceful purpose. 

 

    The U.S. should not even dream of the issue of the DPRK’s dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing LWRs, a physical guarantee for confidence-building. This is our just and consistent stand as solid as a deeply rooted rock. We have so far shaped our policies towards the U.S. hardliners and will do so in the future, too. 

 

    One should wait and see how the U.S. will move in actuality at the phase of “action for action” in the future but should it again insist on “the DPRK’s dismantlement of nuclear weapons before the provision of LWRs”, there will be no change in the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. and its consequences will be very serious and complicated. 

 

    If the U.S. opts for reneging on its promise, we will go ahead without an inch of deflection along the road indicated by the Songun line, our faith and signpost. September 20, Juche 94 (2005)

 

4.2  “DPRK Foreign Ministry; DPRK’s Stand on Six-Party Talks Reclarified”, KCNA, June 2, 2006 

 

   Pyongyang, June 1 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry Thursday released the following statement reclarifying the DPRK’s stand on the six-party talks: The six-party talks for the solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula have been deadlocked for the last more than six months.

 

    The joint statement adopted at the six-party talks is losing its attraction and the concern and expectation of the Koreans and the international community towards the talks are waning with the flow of time. 

 

    Of late officials of the U.S. administration never open their mouths without crying out for the “resumption of the six-party talks.” They bluster that Pyongyang needs to make a strategic decision and Washington is seeking a new approach toward the DPRK in a bid to build up public opinion.

 

    This, however, is bringing into bolder relief the U.S. true intention to torpedo the six-party talks, not pleased with their process. 

 

    The U.S. has escalated sanctions and pressure on the DPRK quite contrary to what it had committed itself in the joint statement, thus preventing the DPRK from returning to the talks. 

 

    We have already clarified more than once the stand that we can never return to the talks designed to pressurize the DPRK to abandon its nuclear program as long as sanctions are applied against it. 

 

    If the U.S. truly wants the resumption of the six-party talks, there is a simple way of resuming them and the U.S. is well aware of this, too. 

 

    At the first phase of the fifth round of the six-party talks held in November last year, the six parties agreed on reenergizing the bilateral and multi-lateral contacts among them to create an atmosphere favorable for the resumption of the second phase of the talks. But the U.S. has avoided contacts with the DPRK. It behaves so because it is interested only in pressurizing the DPRK to abandon its nuclear program first, not in the resumption of the talks. 

 

    As the U.S. side failed to include its demand that the DPRK abandon its nuclear program first in the draft joint statement at the fourth round of the six-party talks last September, it objected to it till the last moment. But it was compelled to sign it by the persuasion of other parties. 

    The adoption of the statement thus dashed the U.S. wild ambition to force the DPRK to abandon its nuclear program first. 

 

    The U.S. knows well that it cannot persistently impose the same demand upon the DPRK at the future six-party talks as it did and it cannot but be censured by other parties if this happens. 

 

    It is also well aware of the fact that it can not but attend the “give-and-take” negotiations on the normalization of relations with the DPRK, the conclusion of a peace agreement and the provision of light water reactors, etc. whether it likes them or not in case the talks are held. 

 

    That would mean a concession to the DPRK, which would not please the hard-liners within the U.S. administration keen to tide over the current crisis with a hard-line approach and thus tip the situation favorable to them in the mid-term election slated for November. 

 

    The DPRK remains unchanged in its stand and will to sincerely implement the joint statement of the six-party talks and denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. 

 

    We will not need even a single nuclear weapon once we get convinced that the U.S. does not antagonize us and confidence is built between the DPRK and the U.S. and, accordingly, we are no longer exposed to the U.S. threat. This is what we have already clarified more than once. 

 

    The DPRK has already made a strategic decision to abandon its nuclear program and this was reflected in the above-said joint statement. 

 

    We are fully ready to discuss the issues of bilateral relations, peaceful coexistence, the conclusion of a peace agreement, the provision of light water reactors and other points mentioned in the statement along with the issue of abandoning the nuclear program on the principle of “simultaneous action”.

 

    What remains to be done is for the U.S. to create conditions and climate whereby the DPRK may return to the talks and fulfill its commitment, free from any pressure. 

 

    The U.S., however, conveyed its stand through the third party, far from having an exhaustive discussion with the DPRK, the party directly concerned with the issue. This behavior only added to the confusion rather than helping settle it. 

 

    The U.S. has made a spate of incoherent outcries. One time it asserted the issue of financial sanctions is a separate matter from the six-party talks as it is one to be handled by law enforcement institutions and then it said that the issue can be dealt with within the framework of the six-party talks. And one time it said that the issue of concluding a peace agreement can be taken up in parallel with the nuclear issue and the other time it argued that it has no idea of advancing a new proposal for the resumption of the six-party talks. 

 

    As for the issue of concluding the peace agreement, it is neither a sort of concession nor gift to be given by one side to the other as it is a commitment stipulated in the joint statement. 

 

    The U.S. will never be able to find a way of solving the issue if it is so reluctant to sit with the party directly concerned with the issue, while expressing its intention to seek a negotiated settlement of such crucial issue as the nuclear issue. 

 

    If the U.S. has a true political intention to implement the joint statement we kindly invite once again the head of the U.S. side’s delegation to the talks to visit Pyongyang and directly explain it to us. 

 

    It is absolutely unattainable for the U.S. to try to force the DPRK to dismantle its nuclear program first through financial supremacy and sanctions. 

 

    The socialist system in the DPRK will never be shaken by the U.S. “financial sanctions” as the DPRK has its unique single-minded unity based on the Songun politics and independent national economy. 

 

    But we will certainly force the U.S. to compensate for the financial loss caused to the DPRK. 

 

    The past more than five decade-long history proves U.S. sanctions unworkable and, on contrary, they have offered the DPRK a good reason to take the toughest stand and that will do it nothing bad. 

 

    The U.S. escalated hostile policy and increasing pressure upon the DPRK would only compel it to take the strongest measures to protect its right to existence and sovereignty.

 

5. The First DPRK Nuclear Test

 

5.1 “DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman on Its Missile Launches”, KCNA, July 7, 2006

 

   Pyongyang, July 6 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry gave the following answer to a question raised by KCNA Thursday as regards the missile launches in the DPRK: In the wake of the missile launches by the Korean People’s Army the U.S. and some other countries following it, including Japan, are making much ado about a serious development. They are terming them “violation” and “provocation” and calling for “sanctions” and “their referral to the UN Security Council.”

 

    The latest successful missile launches were part of the routine military exercises staged by the KPA to increase the nation’s military capacity for self-defence. 

 

    The DPRK’s exercise of its legitimate right as a sovereign state is neither bound to any international law nor to bilateral or multilateral agreements such as the DPRK-Japan Pyongyang Declaration and the joint statement of the six-party talks. 

 

    The DPRK is not a signatory to the Missile Technology Control Regime and, therefore, is not bound to any commitment under it. 

 

    As for the moratorium on long-range missile test-fire which the DPRK agreed with the U.S. in 1999, it was valid only when the DPRK-U.S. dialogue was under way. 

 

    The Bush administration, however, scrapped all the agreements its preceding administration concluded with the DPRK and totally scuttled the bilateral dialogue. 

 

    The DPRK had already clarified in March 2005 that its moratorium on the missile test-fire lost its validity. 

 

    The same can be said of the moratorium on the long-range missile test-fire which the DPRK agreed with Japan in the DPRK-Japan Pyongyang Declaration in 2002. 

 

    In the DPRK-Japan Pyongyang Declaration the DPRK expressed its “intention to extend beyond 2003 the moratorium on the missile fire in the spirit of the declaration.” 

 

    This step was taken on the premise that Japan moved to normalize its relations with the DPRK and redeem its past. 

 

    The Japanese authorities, however, have abused the DPRK’s good faith. They have not honored their commitment but internationalized the “abduction issue,” pursuant to the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK, although the DPRK had fully settled the issue. This behavior has brought the overall DPRK-Japan relations to what was before the publication of the declaration. 

 

    It is a manifestation of the DPRK’s broad magnanimity that it has put on hold the missile launch so far under this situation. 

 

    The joint statement of the six-party talks on September 19, 2005 stipulates the commitments to be fulfilled by the six sides to the talks to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. 

 

    But no sooner had the joint statement been adopted than the U.S. applied financial sanctions against the DPRK and escalated pressure upon it in various fields through them. The U.S., at the same time, has totally hamstrung the efforts for the implementation of the joint statement through such threat and blackmail as large-scale military exercises targeted against the DPRK. 

 

    It is clear to everyone that there is no need for the DPRK to unilaterally put on hold the missile launch under such situation. 

 

    Such being a stark fact, it is a far-fetched assertion grossly falsifying the reality for them to claim that the routine missile launches conducted by the KPA for self-defence strain the regional situation and block the progress of the dialogue. 

 

    It is a lesson taught by history and a stark reality of the international relations proven by the Iraqi crisis that the upsetting of the balance of force is bound to create instability and crisis and spark even a war. 

 

    But for the DPRK’s tremendous deterrent for self-defence, the U.S. would have attacked the DPRK more than once as it had listed the former as part of an “axis of evil” and a “target of preemptive nuclear attack” and peace on the Korean Peninsula and in the region would have been seriously disturbed. 

 

    The DPRK’s missile development, test-fire, manufacture and deployment, therefore, serve as a key to keeping the balance of force and preserving peace and stability in Northeast Asia. 

 

    It is also preposterous for them to term the latest missile launches a “provocation” and the like for the mere reason that the DPRK did not send prior notice about them. 

 

    It would be quite foolish to notify Washington and Tokyo of the missile launches in advance, given that the U.S., which is technically at war with the DPRK, has threatened it since a month ago that it would intercept the latter’s missile in collusion with Japan. 

 

    We would like to ask the U.S. and Japan if they had ever notified the DPRK of their ceaseless missile launches in the areas close to it. 

 

    The DPRK remains unchanged in its will to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula in a negotiated peaceful manner just as it committed itself in the September 19 joint statement of the six-party talks. 

 

    The latest missile launch exercises are quite irrelevant to the six-party talks. 

 

    The KPA will go on with missile launch exercises as part of its efforts to bolster deterrent for self-defence in the future, too. 

 

    The DPRK will have no option but to take stronger physical actions of other forms, should any other country dares take issue with the exercises and put pressure upon it.

 

5.2 (KPA) “National Meeting Marks Day of Victory in War”, KCNA, July 27, 2006

 

   Pyongyang, July 26 (KCNA) — A national meeting was held at the April 25 House of Culture Wednesday to celebrate the 53rd anniversary of the victory in the great Fatherland Liberation War. Present there were Kim Yong Nam, Jo Myong Rok, Pak Pong Ju, Kim Yong Chun and other party, army and state senior officials, Cabinet members, officials of the party, armed forces and power organs, public organizations, ministries and national institutions, servicepersons of the Korean People’s Army, working people in the city and overseas Koreans staying in the socialist homeland.

 

    KPA Vice Marshal Kim Il Chol, who is member of the DPRK National Defence Commission and minister of the People’s Armed Forces, made a report. 

 

    July 27, Juche 42 (1953) is recorded as the day of the second liberation in the glorious history of the DPRK because it was the day when the army and people of the DPRK beat back the armed invasion of the U.S. imperialists who boasted of being the “strongest” in the world and achieved historic victory in the hard-fought Fatherland Liberation War under the outstanding political and military leadership of President Kim Il Sung, the reporter said, and continued: 

 

    The undying feats Kim Il Sung performed by winning the victory in the war are shining more brilliantly in the history of the anti-U.S. and anti-imperialist struggle with a new chapter of victory added to it and the ever-victorious history and tradition of the heroic DPRK have been given steady continuity under the outstanding Songun leadership of Supreme Commander Kim Jong Il. 

 

    The army and people of the DPRK will beat back any aggressor at one stroke and Korean-style socialism will emerge ever-victorious as the above-said immortal feats remain shining as an eternal treasured sword in the anti-U.S. and anti-imperialist struggle and as there is the ever-victorious Songun leadership of Kim Jong Il. 

 

    The reporter went on to say: 

 

    The U.S. has staged in south Korea ceaseless war exercises including RIMPAC joint military exercises by mobilizing even its allies. Recently it took issue with the DPRK’s missile launches and got the UN Security Council to adopt a “resolution” against it. 

 

    It was a sheer brigandish act for the U.S. to have used the UN arena for branding the DPRK’s missile launches as “a threat to the global peace and security” and got it to adopt a “resolution” calling for international pressure aimed to force the DPRK to disarm itself and stifle it. 

 

    The army and people of the DPRK find it hard to repress their towering hatred and resentment at the U.S. and the Japanese reactionaries who are working hard to form an international alliance against the DPRK in a bid to provoke another Korean war of aggression after painting the issue between the DPRK and the U.S. as one between the DPRK and the UN. And they vehemently denounce the U.S. sponsored “resolution” of the UNSC. 

 

    They will bolster war deterrent for self-defence in every way by employing all possible means and methods, not bound to anything, to cope with the serious situation created on the Korean Peninsula due to the U.S. extremely hostile act and the irresponsibility of the UN Security Council. 

 

    They will never abandon their principle in preserving the ideology and system chosen by themselves but deal deadly blows at the enemies’ moves for aggression with all-out do-or-die resistance and unprecedented devastating strikes. 

 

    Should the U.S. and its allies including Japan ignite a war of aggression at any cost despite our repeated warnings the army and people of the DPRK will mercilessly wipe out the aggressors and remove the very root cause of the misfortune imposed upon the Koreans century after century by fully displaying the invincible might of Songun Korea that they have built under the guidance of the brilliant commander of Mt. Paektu. 

 

    The reporter called on all the Party members and other working people and servicepersons to resolutely uphold and thoroughly implement the Songun idea under the Songun revolutionary leadership of Kim Jong Il and thus carry forward and glorify generation after generation the undying feats performed by Kim Il Sung by winning the war and the traditions established by him under the banner of Songun and emerge honorable victors in the stand-off with the U.S. in the new century. 

 

    He underlined the need for the entire Party and the army and all the people to increase the nation’s capacity for self-defence and give priority to the development of national defence industry as required by the WPK’s line of economic construction in the Songun era and thus further bolster the nation’s war deterrent for self-defence true to the WPK’s Songun politics.

 

6. 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

 

   Pyongyang, July 16 (KCNA) — The Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea issued today the following statement vehemently denouncing and totally refuting the “resolution” of the UN Security Council against the DPRK, a product of the U.S. hostile policy toward it: The vicious hostile policy of the United States towards the DPRK and the irresponsibility of the UN Security Council have created an extremely dangerous situation on the Korean Peninsula where the sovereignty of the Korean nation and the security of the state have been seriously infringed.

 

    The U.S. has recently kicked up much row after bringing the issue of the missile launches conducted by our army as part of the routine military training for self-defence to the UN under the motto of reacting to it in one voice. It was against this backdrop that the U.S. forced the UN to adopt a UN Security Council resolution taking a serious note of our exercise of its right to self-defence on July 15. 

 

    The U.S. sponsored “resolution” called for an international pressure for disarming the DPRK and stifling it, terming the missile launches pertaining to its right to self-defence “a threat to international peace and security”.

 

    By doing so the U.S. sought to describe the issue between the DPRK and the U.S. as an issue between the DPRK and the UN and form an international alliance against the DPRK. 

 

    This has brought such serious consequences as gravely violating the dignity and sovereignty of the DPRK and driving the situation to an extreme pitch of tension, thereby seriously disturbing peace and security on the peninsula and in Northeast Asia. 

 

    It was an entirely unreasonable and brigandish act that the U.S. brought to the UN the DPRK’s missile launches nothing contradictory to any international law after branding them as a violation. 

    This time the U.S. attempted till the last moment to apply Chapter 7 of the UN Charter legalizing a military action against the DPRK. This indicates that the “resolution” constitutes a prelude to the provocation of the second Korean war. 

 

    It is a brigandish logic to claim that missile launches conducted by the U.S. and Japan are legal while the training of missile launches conducted by the DPRK to defend itself is illegal. 

 

    Any missile fire or any nuclear test approved by the U.S. is connived at and they are not subject to discussion at the UN. 

 

    This is the reality today. 

 

    The U.S. has made mockery of the DPRK’s true heart and sincere efforts to realize the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner through dialogue and negotiations. Yet the U.S. is now asserting that it will not punish the DPRK once it come out for the six-party talks but punish it if it fails to do so. This is sheer sophism which can never be justified. 

 

    Only the strong can defend justice in the world today where the jungle law prevails. 

 

    Neither the UN nor anyone else can protect us. 

 

    The past history and the present reality show that only a country with its powerful force can defend the national dignity and its sovereignty and independence. 

 

    It is a day-dream to calculate that our principle will alter due to the change of the world. 

    We have already clarified that we will have no option but to take stronger physical actions should someone take issue with our army’s training of missile launches for self-defence and put pressure on it. 

 

    The Foreign Ministry of the DPRK is authorized to clarify as follows in view of the grave situation prevailing on the peninsula: 

 

    First, our Republic vehemently denounces and roundly refutes the UNSC “resolution”, a product of the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK, and will not be bound to it in the least. 

 

    Second, our Republic will bolster its war deterrent for self-defence in every way by all means and methods now that the situation has reached the worst phase due to the extremely hostile act of the U.S. 

 

    We will firmly defend our own way the ideology and system chosen by our people, true to the Songun policy, a treasured sword.

 

6.2  “DPRK Foreign Ministry Clarifies Stand on New Measure to Bolster War Deterrent”, KCNA, October 4, 2006 

 

   Pyongyang, October 3 (KCNA) — The Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea issued the following statement Tuesday solemnly clarifying the DPRK stand on the new measure to be taken by it to bolster its war deterrent for self-defence: The U.S. daily increasing threat of a nuclear war and its vicious sanctions and pressure have caused a grave situation on the Korean Peninsula in which the supreme interests and security of our State are seriously infringed upon and the Korean nation stands at the crossroads of life and death. 

 

    The U.S. has become more frantic in its military exercises and arms build-up on the peninsula and in its vicinity for the purpose of launching the second Korean war since it made a de facto “declaration of war” against the DPRK through the recent brigandish adoption of a UNSC resolution. 

 

    At the same time it is making desperate efforts to internationalize the sanctions and blockade against the DPRK by leaving no dastardly means and methods untried in a foolish attempt to isolate and stifle it economically and bring down the socialist system chosen by its people themselves. 

 

    The present Bush administration has gone the lengths of making ultimatum that it would punish the DPRK if it refuses to yield to the U.S. within the timetable set by it. Under the present situation in which the U.S. moves to isolate and stifle the DPRK have reached the worst phase, going beyond the extremity, the DPRK can no longer remain an on-looker to the developments. 

 

    The DPRK has already declared that it would take all necessary countermeasures to defend the sovereignty of the country and the dignity of the nation from the Bush administration’s vicious hostile actions. 

 

    The DPRK Foreign Ministry is authorized to solemnly declare as follows in connection with the new measure to be taken to bolster the war deterrent for self-defence: 

    Firstly, the field of scientific research of the DPRK will in the future conduct a nuclear test under the condition where safety is firmly guaranteed. 

 

    The DPRK was compelled to pull out of the NPT as the present U.S. administration scrapped the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework and seriously threatened the DPRK’s sovereignty and right to existence. 

 

    The DPRK officially announced that it manufactured up-to-date nuclear weapons after going through transparent legitimate processes to cope with the U.S. escalated threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure. 

 

    The already declared possession of nuclear weapons presupposes the nuclear test. 

    The U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure compel the DPRK to conduct a nuclear test, an essential process for bolstering nuclear deterrent, as a corresponding measure for defence. 

 

    Secondly, the DPRK will never use nuclear weapons first but strictly prohibit any threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear transfer. 

 

    A people without reliable war deterrent are bound to meet a tragic death and the sovereignty of their country is bound to be wantonly infringed upon. This is a bitter lesson taught by the bloodshed resulting from the law of the jungle in different parts of the world. 

 

    The DPRK’s nuclear weapons will serve as reliable war deterrent for protecting the supreme interests of the state and the security of the Korean nation from the U.S. threat of aggression and averting a new war and firmly safeguarding peace and stability on the Korean peninsula under any circumstances. 

 

    The DPRK will always sincerely implement its international commitment in the field of nuclear non-proliferation as a responsible nuclear weapons state. 

 

    Thirdly, the DPRK will do its utmost to realize the denuclearization of the peninsula and give impetus to the world-wide nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. 

 

    As the DPRK has been exposed to the U.S. nuclear threat and blackmail over the past more than half a century, it proposed the denuclearization of the peninsula before any others and has since made utmost efforts to that end. 

 

    The U.S., however, abused the idea of denuclearization set out by the DPRK for isolating and stifling the ideology and system chosen by its people, while systematically disregarding all its magnanimity and sincerity. 

 

    The ultimate goal of the DPRK is not a “denuclearization” to be followed by its unilateral disarmament but one aimed at settling the hostile relations between the DPRK and the U.S. and removing the very source of all nuclear threats from the Korean Peninsula and its vicinity. 

 

    There is no change in the principled stand of the DPRK to materialize the denuclearization of the peninsula through dialogue and negotiation. 

 

    The DPRK will make positive efforts to denuclearize the peninsula its own way without fail despite all challenges and difficulties.

 

6.3  “DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman on U.S. Moves Concerning Its Nuclear Test”, KCNA, October 12, 2006. 

 

   Pyongyang, October 11 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry issued the following statement Wednesday as regards the U.S. ill-boding moves in the wake of the nuclear test in the DPRK: As we have already declared the field of scientific research of the DPRK successfully conducted an underground nuclear test under secure conditions on Oct. 9 as a new measure for bolstering its war deterrent for self-defence. 

 

    The DPRK’s nuclear test was entirely attributable to the U.S. nuclear threat, sanctions and pressure. 

 

    The DPRK has exerted every possible effort to settle the nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations, prompted by its sincere desire to realize the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. 

 

    The Bush administration, however, responded to our patient and sincere efforts and magnanimity with the policy of sanctions and blockade. 

 

    The DPRK was compelled to substantially prove its possession of nukes to protect its sovereignty and right to existence from the daily increasing danger of war from the U.S. 

    Although the DPRK conducted the nuclear test due to the U.S., it still remains unchanged in its will to denuclearize the peninsula through dialogue and negotiations. 

 

    The denuclearization of the entire peninsula was President Kim Il Sung’s last instruction and an ultimate goal of the DPRK. 

 

    The DPRK’s nuclear test does not contradict the September 19 joint statement under which it committed itself to dismantle nuclear weapons and abandon the existing nuclear program. On the contrary, it constitutes a positive measure for its implementation. 

 

    The DPRK clarified more than once that it would feel no need to possess even a single nuke when it is no longer exposed to the U.S. threat after it has dropped its hostile policy toward the DPRK and confidence has been built between the two countries. 

 

    No sooner had the DPRK, which had already pulled out of the NPT and, accordingly, is no longer bound to international law, declared that it conducted a nuclear test than the U.S. manipulated the UN Security Council to issue a resolution pressurizing Pyongyang, an indication of the disturbing moves to impose collective sanctions upon it. 

 

    The DPRK is ready for both dialogue and confrontation. 

 

    If the U.S. increases pressure upon the DPRK, persistently doing harm to it, it will continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of a war.

 

7. Destruction of the Yongbyon Cooling Tower

 

7.1  “DPRK’s Consistent Principled Stand to Fight against All Forms of Terrorism Reiterated “, KCNA, November 9, 2007 

 

   Pyongyang, November 8 (KCNA) — The Korean Central News Agency released Thursday the following detailed report on the recent pirate attack on the DPRK-flagged trading ship “Taehongdan” in waters off Somalia: 

 

    On Oct. 29, 2007 when it was anchored at roads ready for departure after discharging cargo at Mogadishu Port, Somalia the ship came under a surprise attack by seven armed pirates disguised as guards. 

 

    All the crewmen were detained at a steering room and an engine room. 

 

    The pirates demanded the crewmen pay a ransom of 15,000 U.S. dollars and navigate to the waters designated by them, opening fire to threaten them. 

 

    The sailors, however, remained unperturbed under this dangerous situation created all of a sudden. They fought to beat back the pirates’ attack. 

 

    They switched on an automatic warning device and waged a fierce gunfight against the pirates after seizing weapons from two terrorists who were standing guard over the engine room. 

 

    As the steering room was occupied by the pirates, they sailed towards the open sea by use of steering engine for emergency operation and life boat compass, while battling on to overpower the remaining pirates. 

 

    In the meantime, upon receiving a SOS sent by the ship, an institution concerned in the DPRK officially informed the International Maritime Organization and the Piracy Reporting Centre of the IMB stationed in Malaysia of the incident and asked for help. 

 

    At the request of the above-said centre, U.S. navy’s destroyer James E. Williams and a helicopter rushed to the scene and helped the DPRK sailors in fighting, threatening the pirates over walkie-talkie. 

 

    As a result, at around 16:30 on Oct. 30, i.e. about 20 hours after the start of the fight, the pirates dropped arms and surrendered. The ship was completely recaptured by its sailors. 

 

    One pirate was killed and six crewmen of the DPRK were wounded in the fight. 

 

    A surgeon of the U.S. destroyer provided first-aid treatment and other medical service to our wounded crewmen. 

 

    Our cargo ship made a safe voyage to its destination through a regular sea route. 

 

    The pirates’ recent armed attack on our trading ship was a grave terrorist act perpetrated against a peaceful ship. 

 

    It is the consistent principled stand of the DPRK government to oppose all sorts of terrorism. 

 

    As shown by our crewmen through their actions, it is the disposition of the Korean people to fight out any terrorist act on the spot though they are empty-handed. 

 

    We feel grateful to the United States for its assistance given to our crewmen. 

 

    This case serves as a symbol of the DPRK-U.S. cooperation in the struggle against terrorism. 

 

    We will continue to render international cooperation in the fight against terrorism, in the future, too.

 

7.2  (KWP) “U.S. One-sided Hardline Policy Denounced”, KCNA, February 9, 2008 

 

   Pyongyang, February 8 (KCNA) — The U.S. hardline conservative forces are nowadays making outcries that the U.S. should show its “will” through the one-sided hardline policy and put the “human rights” issue on the table of negotiations for the settlement of the nuclear issue to intensify pressure upon the DPRK. 

 

    In the meantime they call for providing dialogues at all levels to establish the missile defence system involving the U.S., Japan and Australia and closely cooperate with one another. 

 

    In this regard Rodong Sinmun today in a signed commentary terms their ill-minded remarks an act of going against dialogue and peace aimed to strengthen the pressure upon the DPRK through the high-handed policy and destroy the process of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and thus drive the situation back to that before the six-party talks, instead of seeking a negotiated solution to the issue. 

 

    The attitude of the U.S. hardline conservative forces against dialogue and negotiation is a manifestation of their way of thinking in the Cold War era, the commentary says, and goes on: 

 

    The U.S. hardline conservative forces are playing a tacit trick, turning aside from the reality with the wrong viewpoint. Lurking behind such actions is a sinister purpose to extremely sharpen the DPRK-U.S. relations and create an international environment favorable for the realization of their hostile policy toward the DPRK. 

 

    It can be typically evidenced by the fact that they are scheming to expand the sphere of MD by enlisting not only Japan but Australia in it. The high-handed attitude of the U.S. hardline conservatives, who attach more importance to the military tough policy than to dialogue, is an expression of their unilateralism and supremacy. 

 

    If they continue to persist in one-sided hardline policy, the DPRK will be compelled to take due countermeasures. The DPRK has no debt to the U.S. The one-for-one principle is the DPRK’s way of counteraction and it is its stand that if one do a thing for the other, latter would do the same. The DPRK never allows anything of defaming its self-confidence and dignity to be done. The U.S. hardline conservative forces should give up their one-sided tough policy, well aware of the DPRK’s unshakable principle and will. The one-sided hardline policy will bring no good but only harm. 

 

    If the U.S. hardline conservative forces drive the situation of the Korean Peninsula and the DPRK-U.S. relations to the worst phase, persistently refusing to find a negotiated solution to the issue, the efforts made so far will come to naught and the U.S. would be chiefly to blame for the results.

 

7.3 (KPA) “KPA to Counter with Its Positive Retaliatory Blows Any Attempt to Stifle DPRK by Force of Arms”, KCNA, March 3, 2008 

 

   Pyongyang, March 2 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the Panmunjom Mission of the Korean People’s Army (KPA) released a statement on Sunday as regards the fact that the U.S. and south Korean bellicose forces started what they called Key Resolve and Foal Eagle joint military exercises under the simulated conditions of the second Korean war across south Korea on March 2. 

  

  The south Korea-U.S. joint military exercises that have started under the new codename of Key Resolve that replaced RSOI are aimed at leading a war to “victory” through the “effective deployment of U.S. reinforcements in case of ‘contingency'” and thereby stifling the DPRK by force of arms, the statement noted, and continued: 

 

    The U.S. is staging madcap war maneuvers together with the south Korean bellicose forces after forward-deploying a field commanding mechanism for aggression in south Korea and in its vicinity and massively beefing up its air force. This is an indication that the U.S. is in the process of testing and examining a new war method under the simulated conditions of an actual war, the method of reducing the areas of the DPRK to ashes through preemptive air strikes including nuclear attack from the outset of the war and hurling its ground forces there. 

 

    The U.S. military is frantically pushing ahead with the arms buildup and war maneuvers at a time when the U.S. and south Korean conservative hardliners are letting loose such reckless remarks as “north Korea failed to meet the deadline to implement the October 3 agreement” and “it is necessary to take new measures if it continues delaying the nuclear declaration.” This is an open and blatant challenge to the denuclearization and peace of the Korean Peninsula. 

 

    All facts clearly prove once again that the U.S. does not have any idea of dropping its hostile policy toward the DPRK at all and its loudmouthed “dialogue,” “end to the state of armistice” and “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” are nothing but a crafty charade intended to cover up its preparations for a nuclear war, disarm the DPRK and mislead the world public opinion. 

 

    The KPA has never expected any benefit from the dialogue with the U.S. 

 

    If the U.S. and south Korean bellicose forces persistently work to realize their scenario to stifle the DPRK by force of arms at any cost, the KPA will not stand passively on the defensive but counter it with positive retaliatory strikes by mobilizing all means long built up by the DPRK at a high price. 

 

    In this case the U.S. and its followers will be wholly responsible for all the ensuing consequences.

 

7.4 (KWP) “Moves of U.S., Japan and South Korea for “Triangular Military Alliance” under Fire”, KCNA, March 12, 2008 

 

   Pyongyang, March 11 (KCNA) — The United States, Japan and south Korea decided to form a military cooperation mechanism called “three-nation coordinating committee” at the fourth meeting of the “security research consultative council.” This heralds the beginning of a new Cold War in Northeast Asia as it means, in fact, that the formation of a “triangular military alliance” has reached its finishing phase. 

 

    Rodong Sinmun today observes this in a signed commentary. 

 

    It goes on: 

 

    The projected “triangular military alliance” is a leftover of the Cold War. It is a criminal “alliance” for aggression as it is aimed at laying an anti-socialist military siege to the DPRK in a bid to stifle it in the light of its objective and nature. 

 

    The U.S. has already built up the backbone of the “triangular military alliance” by concluding the “mutual defence treaty” with south Korea and the “security pact” with Japan. 

 

    The U.S. is still seeking to dominate the whole of Korea by force quite contrary to the trend of the times towards dialogue and peace. It is busy operating the military alliance system involving the U.S., Japan and south Korea under the signboard of “security cooperation” and zealously egging its followers on to join in the moves for a war of aggression against the DPRK. 

 

    The Japanese reactionaries are joining the U.S. with increased zeal in its rackets for aggression against the DPRK in a foolish bid to realize the old dream of the “Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere” with the latter’s backing. 

 

    The south Korean military forces, regarding foreign forces as more important than their compatriots, are now rushing headlong into treachery, confrontation between the north and the south and moves for a war of aggression against the north in league with those forces. This is evidenced by their moves to introduce “the missile defence system” and participate in the “PSI”, crying out for an alliance with the U.S. and Japan more loudly than ever before. 

 

    The above-mentioned moves are a blatant challenge to the sincere efforts of the DPRK to defuse the military confrontation and tension on the Korean Peninsula and build a lasting peace-keeping mechanism and carve out a new history of the nation for reunification and prosperity. 

    The DPRK can never remain a passive on-onlooker to the moves stepped up by the south Korean bellicose forces for military confrontation with fellow countrymen in collusion with their masters U.S. and Japan. 

 

    The warmongers of the U.S., Japan and south Korea would be well advised to properly pay heed to the DPRK’s warnings and stop working for reinforcing the criminal “triangular military alliance” aimed at escalating the military confrontation and tension, urges the commentary.

 

7.5  “DPRK Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman Blasts U.S. Delaying Tactics in Solution of Nuclear Issue”, KCNA, March 29, 2008 

 

   Pyongyang, March 28 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the DPRK Ministry of Foreign Affairs released the following statement Friday blaming the U.S. for the deadlocked implementation of the October 3 agreement of the six-party talks: 

 

    The implementation of the October 3 agreement of the six-party talks is at a deadlock due to the behavior of the U.S. 

 

    The U.S. has not fulfilled its commitments as regards the lifting of the sanctions within the agreed period but insisted on its unreasonable demands concerning the nuclear declaration, thus throwing hurdles in the way of settling the issue. 

 

    As clarified in the statement issued by the spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on January 4, the DPRK worked out a report on the nuclear declaration and informed the U.S. side of this in November last year. And when the U.S. proposed to have a further discussion on the content of the report with the DPRK, the latter has shown so far such magnanimity as responding to such negotiations. 

 

    Simple is the reason why the DPRK responded to the negotiations on the issue of the nuclear declaration. 

 

    The Bush administration was so absurd as to raise the issue of “suspected uranium enrichment” in 2002, scuttling the DPRK-U.S. dialogue and straining the situation to an extreme pitch of tension. This pushed the DPRK to its access to nuclear weapons in the end. 

 

    The DPRK rendered necessary sincere help in clarifying the issue raised by the U.S. side, taking into consideration the face of the Bush administration which was to blame for the former’s access to nuclear weapons. 

 

    When the U.S. side claimed that the issue of “suspected uranium enrichment” can be solved if the DPRK tells about whereabouts of the imported aluminum tubes, the DPRK took such a measure as an exception as allowing U.S. experts to see even sensitive military objects and providing them with samples. 

 

    And when the U.S. side was the first to raise the issue of the “suspected nuclear cooperation with Syria,” it asked the DPRK to reconfirm its commitment not to proliferate the nuclear technology as the relevant object of Syria was destroyed by the bombing of Israel, making it unnecessary to clarify it any longer. 

 

    This “suspicion”, too, had nothing to do with the DPRK. But it was so broadminded as to meet this request as a part of its sincere efforts to help implement the October 3 agreement. 

    The DPRK has sincerely taken part in the negotiations taking the face of the U.S. side into consideration. 

 

    However, the further the negotiations went on, the greater disappointment the attitude of the Bush administration brought to the DPRK. 

 

    The U.S. side is playing a poor trick to brand the DPRK as a criminal at any cost in order to save its face. 

 

    The DPRK can never fall victim to the Bush administration’s move to justify its wrong assertion. 

 

    Explicitly speaking, the DPRK has never enriched uranium nor rendered nuclear cooperation to any other country. It has never dreamed of such things. 

 

    Such things will not happen in the future, too. 

 

    Should the U.S. delay the settlement of the nuclear issue, persistently trying to cook up fictions, it will seriously affect the disabling of nuclear facilities which has been under way so far with a great deal of effort.

 

7.6 (KPA) “U.S. Cancellation of Its “Plan for Cutback” of Its Forces under Fire”, KCNA, Jun 9, 2008 

 

 Panmunjom, June 9 (KCNA) — The U.S. secretary of Defense and the minister of “National Defense” of south Korea held talks in Seoul on June 3 at which they officially confirmed that they decided to implement the agreement reached between Bush and Lee Myung Bak on canceling the “plan for reducing” the U.S. troops in south Korea as it was. 

 

    In this regard a spokesman for the Panmunjom Mission of the Korean People’s Army issued a statement Monday.

 

    This, in fact, amounted to confirming and announcing to the world once again the U.S. undisguised attempt to perpetuate its presence in south Korea and Korea’s division, it says, and goes on: 

 

    The U.S. equipped with nukes and the south Korean warmongers going mad with the preparations for a war against the DPRK under its nuclear umbrella are getting evermore undisguised in their war moves. Under this situation the KPA cannot remain a passive onlooker to the above-said disturbing development, while abandoning its nuclear deterrence. 

 

    The KPA will never allow the U.S. to exploit the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as a pretext for intensifying the moves for aggression against the DPRK and a fig-leaf for covering up them. 

 

    Should the U.S. and the south Korean warlike forces persist in their moves for a war against the DPRK as now, the KPA will be left with no option but to further bolster all its war deterrents. 

 

    The U.S. conservative hardliners and the present south Korean rulers had better behave themselves, thinking twice about to what extent the daily aggravating military confrontation with the DPRK will drive the six-party talks, the DPRK-U.S. relations and the inter-Korean relations.

 

7.7 “DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman on Implementation of Agreement Adopted by Six-Party Talks”, July 5, 2008 

 

   Pyongyang, July 4 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry released the following statement Friday as regards the implementation of the October 3 agreement adopted by the six-party talks: 

 

    The October 3 agreement has entered a new phase in its implementation thanks to the DPRK’s sincere efforts. 

 

    The disablement of the nuclear facilities in the DPRK has been done more than 80 percent as of now and it implemented the agreed point that calls for presenting an accurate and complete nuclear declaration. 

 

    The DPRK took the measure of completely blowing up the cooling tower of the pilot atomic power plant, in particular, going beyond the phase of disablement. 

 

    This constitutes a step taken out of good will, a proof of the DPRK’s will for the denuclearization, as it means that it has taken in advance the action to be done at the phase following the dismantlement of the nuclear facilities. 

 

    The other participating parties of the six-way talks should join the DPRK in its efforts by honestly fulfilling their commitments. 

 

    The U.S. published the measure for political compensation according to the October 3 agreement, but the measure for taking the DPRK off the list of “state sponsors of terrorism” has not yet taken effect due to its procedural factor and the measure for putting an end to applying the “Trading with the Enemy Act” against the DPRK has not been implemented to the full in the light of its substance, though the U.S. claims it came into force. 

 

    The commitments of the five parties to make economic compensation have been fulfilled just 40 per cent as of now. 

 

    A party whose chief delegate had seconded the above-said agreement by raising his hand at the six-party talks is refusing to participate in the undertaking to implement it, but it is still connived at. 

 

    The DPRK is ready to cooperate in verifying the nuclear declaration but is maintaining the basic principle that the principle of “action for action” should be observed. 

 

    By origin, the denuclearization of the whole Korean Peninsula in line with the September 19 joint statement presupposes its verification. The fulfillment of the commitments by all participating parties including the U.S. should be verified without exception. 

 

    Only when all the participating countries accurately wind up the fulfillment of their commitments, is it possible to see the full implementation of the October 3 agreement and only then can the discussion of the issues at the next phase make smooth progress. 

 

    This is the basic requirement of the principle of “action for action” and the consistent stand of the DPRK.

 

7.8 (Cabinet)  “U.S. Escalated Military Provocations Accused”, KCNA, July 23, 2008. 

 

   Pyongyang, July 22 (KCNA) — The United States’ recent escalated military provocations and threat to the DPRK come under fire by a signed commentary of Minju Joson Tuesday. 

 

    The U.S. connived at and incited the mean and vulgar acts perpetrated by guards of the U.S. forces side to disturb the performance of the duties by guard personnel of the DPRK side in the area of the Panmunjom conference room. Shortly ago, the U.S. forces side was so foolish as to inform the DPRK side that it would stage Ulji Freedom Guardian joint military exercises from August 18 to 22, far from making an apology and giving assurances against the reoccurrence of similar cases to the guard personnel of the DPRK side who protested against the provocations. Timed to coincide with this, the U.S. announced that it would bring the latest super large Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carrier Ronald Reagan to Pusan Port of South Korea. 

 

    This is a clear proof that the U.S. is keen to deliberately aggravate the situation on the Korean Peninsula, the commentary says, and goes on: 

 

    The U.S. is perpetrating ceaseless military provocations against the DPRK, its dialogue partner, at this crucial time when diplomatic efforts are being made to settle the hostile relations between the DPRK and the U.S. Its behavior is prompted by its calculation that if its military pressure and threat are escalated to keep pace with its diplomatic dialogue, it can discourage its rival, wrest an important political concession and boost its negotiating position. 

 

    This tells that the way of solving problems by strength still serves as a major lever for implementing the U.S. foreign policy and the American politicians are still obsessed with the outdated conception of confrontation. 

 

    As the DPRK clarified more than once, the policy of strength is not all-powerful and it does not work on the DPRK, in particular. 

 

    Any attempt of the U.S. to settle issues concerning the relations with the DPRK by strength would only lead the situation to catastrophe.

 

    It is high time the U.S. and other countries concerned behaved themselves now that they are at the crucial phase of the process to settle the deep-rooted hostile relations between the DPRK and the U.S. and achieve peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula by realizing the denuclearization of the peninsula. It is quite nonsensical for the U.S. to offer a handshake to its dialogue partner, while holding a dagger in its other hand. 

 

    The U.S. should be prudent, cogitating about the grave consequences to be entailed by its irresponsible behavior.

 

7.9 “Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman on DPRK’s Decision to Suspend Activities to Disable Nuclear Facilities”, KCNA, August 27, 2008 

 

   Pyongyang, August 26 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Tuesday in connection with the stumbling block laid by the United States in the way of settling the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula by refusing to implement the October 3 agreement of the six-party talks. 

 

    The statement said: 

 

    Under the October 3 agreement stipulating the practical measures to be taken at the second phase for the implementation of the September 19 joint statement on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula the DPRK was committed to presenting a nuclear declaration and the U.S. was also committed to writing the DPRK off the list of the “state sponsors of terrorism.” 

 

    The DPRK has honored its commitment by presenting the nuclear declaration on June 26. But the U.S. failed to delist the DPRK as a “state sponsor of terrorism” within the fixed date for the mere “reason” that a protocol on the verification of the nuclear declaration has not yet been agreed upon. This was an outright violation of the agreement. 

 

    No agreements reached among the six parties or between the DPRK and the U.S. contain an article which stipulates the verification of the nuclear declaration of the DPRK as conditionality for delisting it as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” 

 

    As far as the verification is concerned, it is a commitment to be fulfilled by the six parties at the final phase of the denuclearization of the whole Korean Peninsula according to the September 19 joint statement. 

 

    It should be verified that there are no U.S. nuclear weapons in and around south Korea and that there has been neither new shipment nor passage of those weapons. This verification and the verification of the DPRK’s fulfillment of its commitments should be done at the same time. This is the principle of “action for action”.

 

    All that was agreed upon at the present phase was to set up verification and monitoring mechanisms within the framework of the six parties. 

 

    The U.S., however, raised all of a sudden an issue of applying an “international standard” to the verification of the nuclear declaration, abusing this agreed point. It pressurized the DPRK to accept such inspection as scouring any place of the DPRK as it pleases to collect samples and measure them. 

 

    The “international standard” touted by the U.S. is nothing but “special inspection” which the IAEA called for in the 1990s to infringe upon the sovereignty of the DPRK and caused it to pull out of the NPT in the end. 

 

    The U.S. is gravely mistaken if it thinks it can make a house search in the DPRK as it pleases just as it did in Iraq. 

 

    The U.S. insistence on the unilateral inspection of the DPRK is a brigandish demand for unilaterally disarming the DPRK, the other belligerent party, by discarding its commitment to the denuclearization of the whole Korean Peninsula the core of which is to remove the U.S. nuclear threat according to the September 19 joint statement. 

 

    The DPRK’s intention to denuclearize the peninsula is to remove the nuclear threat from the Korean nation, not to have a bargaining over the DPRK’s nuclear deterrent. 

 

    For whom is the six-way structure necessary if the six-party talks are reduced to a platform for a big country to trifle with a small country as it does at present? 

 

    This time the U.S. postponed the process of delisting the DPRK as a “state sponsor of terrorism” under the pretext of verification even after officially declaring internally and externally that the DPRK is not a “state sponsor of terrorism”. This is little short of admitting that the list is not related to terrorism in actuality. 

 

    The DPRK does not care whether it continues remaining on the list of “those countries which are disobedient to the U.S.” 

 

    The U.S. is now keen to gravely encroach upon the sovereignty of the DPRK. 

 

    Now that the U.S. breached the agreed points, the DPRK is compelled to take the following countermeasures on the principle of “action for action”:

 

    First, the DPRK decided to immediately suspend the disablement of its nuclear facilities that had been underway according to the October 3 agreement.

 

    This step took effect on August 14 and the parties concerned have already been notified of this.

 

    Second, the DPRK will consider soon a step to restore the nuclear facilities in Nyongbyon to their original state as strongly requested by its relevant institutions. 

 

8. The Second Nuclear Test 

 

8.1 “DPRK Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman Dismisses U.S. Wrong Assertion”, KCNA, January 17, 2009 

 

Pyongyang, January 17 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the DPRK Ministry of Foreign Affairs Saturday gave the following answer to the question put by KCNA dismissing the U.S. wrong assertion over the nuclear issue and the issue of normalizing the bilateral relations:

 

The U.S. administration was recently reported to have asserted that the normalization of the relations is possible only when the DPRK dismantles its nuclear weapons, first of all, and the normalized relations will not be possible without the complete and verifiable elimination of north Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. 

 

This is a revelation of the true colors of the U.S. as a big power which regards the normalization of the relations as a gift to the DPRK and a distortion of the essence of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

 

The U.S. is miscalculating if it considers the normalization of the DPRK-U.S. relations as a reward for the DPRK’s nuclear abandonment.

 

The DPRK made nuclear weapons to defend itself from the U.S nuclear threat, not in the anticipation of such things as the normalization of the relations with the U.S. or economic assistance.

 

It is the reality on the Korean Peninsula that we can live without normalizing the relations with the U.S. but not without nuclear deterrent.

 

We have lived for decades without normalizing the relations with the U.S. and live on still with dignity. 

 

The issue of normalizing the relations and the nuclear issue are the two separate matters from A to Z.

 

If there is something to be desired by us, it is not to normalize the relations between the DPRK and the U.S. but to boost the nuclear deterrent in every way to more firmly defend the security of our nation.

 

The nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is, in essence, the issue of the U.S. and our nuclear weapons.

 

Though the bilateral relations are normalized in a diplomatic manner, the DPRK’s status as a nuclear weapons state will remain unchanged as long as it is exposed even to the slightest U.S. nuclear threat.

 

8.2 (KPA) “KPA General Staff Spokesman Blasts Hostile Forces’ Anti-DPRK Racket”, KCNA, April 18, 2009 

 

Pyongyang, April 18 (KCNA) — As already clarified, the Korean People’s Army will consider sanctions to be applied against the DPRK under various names over its satellite launch or any pressure to be put upon it through “total participation” in the PSI as a declaration of undisguised confrontation and a declaration of a war against the DPRK.

 

A spokesman for the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army declared this in an answer given to a question put by KCNA on April 18 denouncing the Lee Myung Bak group of traitors for doing evils over the DPRK’s launch of the satellite for peaceful purposes.

 

The news that the DPRK scientists and technicians correctly put the satellite Kwangmyongsung-2 into orbit at one go by a multi-stage carrier rocket Unha-2 is being unanimously praised and hailed not only by all the Koreans in the north and the south and abroad but by progressive humankind, stirring up the world, the spokesman said, and went on:

 

It is only the U.S. and Japanese aggressors and the Lee Myung Bak group of traitors that are making uproar over the DPRK’s successful satellite launch as if a nuclear bomb had been dropped over their own lands and kicking up an unprecedented anti-DPRK racket, raising a hue and cry over the violation of a UN resolution, sanctions and the like.

 

The Lee group of traitors is so hateful as to take the lead in such racket in particular.

 

It found itself frustrated in the racket it kicked up after dispatching even a destroyer of the puppet navy in a bid to intercept the DPRK’s satellite together with interceptor warships of the U.S. and Japanese aggressor forces. This group is unhesitatingly revealing its sinister intention not to rule out even a war, setting in motion even the bellicose elements of the puppet military to cry out for sending a strong and unanimous worldwide message to the DPRK and blustering that a practical pressure would be put upon the DPRK through south Korea’s “total participation” in the PSI.

 

It is a far-fetched logic of traitor Lee Myung Bak and the bellicose elements of the puppet military that either a satellite launch or a rocket launch is a violation.

 

There are not a few countries in the world that launched satellites. 

 

But none of them has put a satellite into space by blowing, instead of using a rocket.

 

The group of traitors is ridiculously asserting that the satellite launches by its masters U.S. and Japan do not pose any problem but the one launched by the DPRK where its fellow countrymen live is problematic. This is nothing but vituperation and sophism which can be let loose only by traitors steeped in flunkeyism and submission to the marrows of their bones. 

 

The Lee group should have sincerely hailed the admirable event to be proud of in the history of the nation as it demonstrated the dignity and wisdom of the nation to the world. It is, however, working hard to stifle fellow countrymen in collusion with outsiders, the sworn enemies of the Korean nation. This is an unpardonable crime against the nation, reunification and peace. 

 

Now that the group officially declared confrontation and war against the DPRK, its revolutionary armed forces will opt for increasing the nation’s defence capability including nuclear deterrent in every way, without being bound to the agreement adopted at the six-party talks. 

 

The army of the DPRK has never pinned any hope on the six-party talks from their outset but closely followed the moves of the U.S. and Japanese aggressors and the Lee group of traitors.

The revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK are always keeping themselves fully ready to go into action any moment to mercilessly punish anyone who encroaches upon the sovereignty and dignity of the DPRK even a bit.

 

There is no limit to the strike to be made by the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK.

The Lee group of traitors should never forget that Seoul is just 50 km away from the Military Demarcation Line.

 

The persistent anti-DPRK confrontational racket kicked up by the group over the DPRK’s satellite launch will only bring disgrace and destruction to it. 

 

9. Peace Treaties and Succession

 

9.1  (KPA) “US-S. Korean Moves to Bring down System in DPRK Warned”, March 26, 2010 

 

Pyongyang, March 26 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army Thursday gave the following answer to the question raised by KCNA as to the recent disclosure of new information about the desperate moves of the U.S. imperialists and the south Korean puppet warmongers to bring down the system in the DPRK: 

 

According to the south Korean newspaper Dong-A Ilbo dated March 19, presided over by the command of the U.S. imperialist aggressor forces in the Pacific, those concerned of the “Institute for National Defense Studies”, the “Institute for Maritime Strategy Studies” of south Korea and the “Institute for State Policy Studies” of neighboring countries would be closeted together in the middle of April to examine the possibility of what they called “contingency” in the DPRK and discuss a “proposal for cooperation,” etc. to cope with it. It was reported that they would further their confab in Seoul in June and in Hawaii in July. 

 

The disclosed fact clearly indicates that the scenario to bring down the system in the DPRK already worked out by them is entering a reckless phase of implementation. 

 

As far as the socialist system in the DPRK is concerned, it constitutes the unshakable faith of the Korean people and it is like an impregnable fortress firmly guarded by the invincible army of Songun. 

 

For them to wait for what they call “contingency” to happen is a pipe dream of a lunatic wishing for the sky to fall. 

 

Such “contingency” will take place in south Korea where all sorts of social evils and ills and internal contradictions and conflicts have reached their height, not in the DPRK where people are bringing about epochal miracles and leap forward everyday with the day of the emergence of a thriving nation drawing near. 

 

It is the height of folly for the present south Korean puppet authorities to dare talk about “bringing down system” of someone and “unifying the systems” to please their master, unaware of where they stand. 

 

The above-said fact once again clearly proves that the U.S. imperialists and the south Korean puppet bellicose forces have not an iota of intention to improve the relations with the DPRK but only seek to hatch plots to “bring down its system” and ignite a war.

 

The People’s Army and people of the DPRK who always follow with high vigilance the abnormal developments in areas around the DPRK will bolster up its nuclear deterrent for self-defence capable of frustrating any plot and provocation at a single strike and keep all the powerful striking means fully ready to go into action at all times. 

 

The U.S. imperialists and the south Korean puppet warmongers should bear in mind that they will not be able to find a shelter to survive the unpredictable strikes of the KPA, should they persistently work to bring down the system in the DPRK. 

 

Those who seek to bring down the system in the DPRK, whether they play a main role or a passive role, will fall victim to the unprecedented nuclear strikes of the invincible army and the just war to be waged by all the infuriated service personnel and people.

 

9.2  “DPRK Foreign Ministry Declares Strong Counter- Measures against UNSC’s “Resolution 1874″”, KCNA, June 13, 2009:  

 

Pyongyang, June 13 (KCNA) — The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea issued the following statement Saturday in connection with the fact that at the instigation of the U.S., the United Nations Security Council has finally adopted a “resolution on sanctions” against the DPRK over its second nuclear test:

 

On June 12, the United Nations Security Council, at the instigation of the U.S., has finally adopted a “resolution on sanctions” against the DPRK over its second nuclear test. 

 

This is yet another vile product of the U.S.-led offensive of international pressure aimed at undermining the DPRK’s ideology and its system chosen by its people by disarming the DPRK and suffocating its economy. 

 

The U.S. and Japan, not content with this “resolution”, are hatching dirty plots to add their own “sanctions” to the existing ones against the DPRK by framing up the fictional issues of “counterfeit money” and “drug trafficking”. 

 

The U.S. incited the United Nations Security Council to get more deeply embroiled in its attempt to stifle the DPRK, which resulted in the creation of an unprecedentedly acute tension on the Korean Peninsula. 

 

This confrontation was sparked off by unlawful strong arm actions of the U.S. and its obedient UNSC in denial of the legitimate right of a sovereign state to launch satellites. 

 

The UNSC’s April 14th “presidential statement” orchestrated by the U.S. does not hold any ground in view of international law. 

 

What permeates this statement is none other than animosity against and rejection of a country that has a system different from theirs along with an arrogant and arbitrary view that a small country must obey a large one. 

 

The DPRK is a small country, but it is a political, ideological and military power. 

If this high-handed act of the U.S. is tolerated, the DPRK will no longer be entitled to launch satellites again –which everyone else does– but will forever be deprived of its right to use outer space. 

 

The DPRK’s second nuclear test is a self-defensive measure as it was conducted to cope with such hostile acts of the U.S. and this does not run counter to any international law. 

 

In essence, this confrontation is an issue related to the sovereignty and dignity of the DPRK rather than an issue related to peace and security– this is the DPRK-U.S. confrontation. 

 

There can be no genuine peace in the absence of independence and equality. 

 

Had any other country found itself in the situation of the DPRK, it would have clearly realized that the DPRK has never chosen but was compelled to go nuclear in the face of the U.S. hostile policy and its nuclear threats. 

 

It has become an absolutely impossible option for the DPRK to even think about giving up its nuclear weapons. It makes no difference to the DPRK whether its nuclear status is recognized or not. 

 

Upon authorization, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK strongly condemns and rejects the UNSC “resolution 1874” and declares that it will take the following countermeasures at this early phase of all-out confrontation with the U.S. in order to defend the national dignity and the country’s sovereignty. 

 

First: The whole amount of the newly extracted plutonium will be weaponized.

 

More than one third of the spent fuel rods has been reprocessed to date. 

 

Second: The process of uranium enrichment will be commenced.

 

Pursuant to the decision to build its own light-water reactor, enough success has been made in developing uranium enrichment technology to provide nuclear fuel to allow the experimental procedure. 

 

Third: An attempted blockade of any kind by the U.S. and its followers will be regarded as an act of war and met with a decisive military response. 

 

No mater how hard the U.S.-led hostile forces may try all sorts of isolation and blockade, the DPRK, a proud nuclear power, will not flinch from them. 

 

It is the Songun idea-based mode of counter-action for the DPRK to decisively counter “sanctions” with retaliation and “confrontation” with all-out confrontation.

 

9.3 “DPRK Issues Foreign Ministry ‘Memorandum’ 21 Apr on Denuclearization of Korean Peninsula”, KCNA, April 21, 2010.  

 

Korean language version online at: http://www.kcna.co.jp/calendar/2010/04/04-21/2010-0421-024.html

 

The construction of a nuclear-free world is mankind’s ardent wish that has been maintained from the 20th century to the 21st century.

 

The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is a part of global denuclearization. The Six-Party Talks have been held over the past years for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, but the talks are currently facing grave obstacles without producing results that are worth a mention. Along with the deep-seated distrust among the parties concerned, the main reason is because some countries participating in the talks are seriously distorting the essence of the issue for their sinister objectives. If the essence of the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is to be precisely understood and if the way of its realization is to be correctly found, it is essential to correctly realize the initial circumstances and causes of the nuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

 

1. The Most Serious Nuclear Victim in the World

 

Never has there been such a nation in the world as the Korean nation that has suffered nuclear threat most directly and for the longest period. For our people, nuclear threat is by no means an abstract concept but a realistic and concrete experience.

 

Our nation is the one that directly sustained the damage caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States’ nuclear attacks, and it is the nation that suffered the most casualties there, only next to the Japanese.

 

For the people that directly experienced the horrible catastrophes of atomic bombs, the atomic bomb blackmail that the United States wielded during the days of the Korean war was literally a nightmare. After US President Truman on 30 November 1950 openly mentioned the use of atomic bombs on the Korean front, an order was given on the same day to the US Strategic Air Command on “Maintaining a standby status to fly bombers to immediately drop atomic bombs in the Far East.” In December of the same year, [Douglas] MacArthur, Commander of the US Forces Far East, let loose an outburst, “A radioactive corridor will be created from the East Sea [Sea of Japan] to the West Sea [Yellow Sea] of the northern region of Korea. In this region living things will not be able to resurrect over the next 60 years or 120 years.” 

 

Because of the United States’ nuclear blackmail, the rows of “atomic bomb refugees” were created to flow from north to south of the Korean peninsula during the war. When entire family members were unable to leave together, many families forced their husbands or sons to evacuate to the South with only the desire to maintain their family bloodlines. Millions of the “separated families” created through this course are still living divided in the North and the South of the Korean peninsula.

 

The United States is the ringleader who was the first to bring nuclear weapons into the Korean peninsula. When the retention of the pro-US regime was jeopardized, as the anti-nuclear campaign was escalating in Japan in the late 1950s, the United States moved the nuclear weapons deployed in Japan to South Korea. In 1957, the United States’ first strategic nuclear weapons were brought from Japan into South Korea and deployed there. In the end, the United States nuclearized the Korean peninsula in place of the “denuclearization” of Japan. The United States’ deployment of nuclear weapons in South Korea constantly built up, and the number of nuclear weapons reached over approximately 1,000 in the mid 1970s.

 

From the late 1960s, the United States began to stage joint military exercises to actually use the nuclear weapons deployed in South Korea in a war of aggression against our Republic. The US-South Korea joint nuclear war exercise — which began with the “Focus Retina” operations in 1969 — has ceaselessly continued every year since then for such a long, long period of 40-odd years, while its name being changed to “Freedom Bolt,” “Team Spirit,” “Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration [RSOI],” “Key Resolve,” “Foal Eagle,” and “Ulchi Freedom Guardian,” and the like.

 

It is precisely a stark nuclear reality of the Korean peninsula that even the post-war generations have grown in this way while inhaling nuclear powder odor as the targets of the US nuclear weapons that are deployed in South Korea for a real war.

 

2. The Effort That the Government of the Republic Has Made To Remove US Nuclear Threat

 

The DPRK’s effort aimed at removing the United States’ nuclear threat has been made in three stages.

 

In the first stage, the government of the Republic made an effort to remove the United States’ nuclear threat by the method of creating a denuclearized zone through peaceful dialogue and negotiations.

 

In 1959, it [government of the Republic] proposed to establish an atomic bomb-free peace zone in Asia; in 1981, it put forth a proposal for the establishment of a denuclearized zone in Northeast Asia; and in 1986, it proposed to turn the Korean peninsula into a non-nuclear-weapon region and made an active effort for its implementation.

 

On 10 January 1984, it proposed the convening of three-party talks — the talks in which the South Korean authorities, too, would participate in the DPRK-US talks to be held to remove the danger of a nuclear war; and in a government statement released on 23 June 1986 it solemnly declared that it would not test, produce, store, or introduce nuclear weapons, would not allow any military bases, including foreign nuclear bases, and would not allow the transit of foreign nuclear weapons via its territorial land, territorial airspace, and territorial waters.

 

Nevertheless, the United States has escalated the nuclear threat to us while ignoring all our efforts exerted to create a non-nuclear-weapon region in the Korean peninsula.

In the second stage, the government of the Republic combined efforts to remove the United States’ nuclear threat based on international law.

 

In 1978, the depositary states of the NPT — the United States, the former Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom — issued, though conditional, a “non-use of nuclear weapons” statement [stating] that they would not use nuclear weapons against the non-nuclear-weapon states that joined the treaty. The DPRK joined the treaty in December 1985 with a hope that this would help the removal of the United States’ nuclear threat to us.

 

When the United States made a pledge that it would discontinue the “Team Spirit” nuclear war exercise, we, based on the relevant NPT clause, actively helped the aperiodic inspections that the IAEA conducted six times during the period of May 1992 through February 1993.

Nevertheless, the United States, by instigating the sinister forces in the agency while talking about the so-called “suspicion about nuclear development,” fabricated a “resolution for special inspection” targeting not only our nuclear facilities but even our sensitive military targets, even before the completion of the agency’s aperiodic inspections based on the safeguard agreement. Since then, the brigandish nature of such a mandatory inspection was completely laid bare through the Iraqi situation. Under the pretext of inspection, the United States combed even the Iraqi Presidential Palace and concocted the “intelligence” that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to use it as an excuse to carry out military strikes. Later on, it was revealed to the whole world that the “intelligence” that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction was a groundless fabrication, but it was too late; it was already after the country collapsed, and the nation had become submerged in a sea of blood.

 

In order to impose a “special inspection” on us, the United States blatantly perpetrated nuclear threat by even resuming the “Team Spirit” joint military exercise that it already suspended. After all, it was impossible to stop the United States’ high-handedness even with the international treaty, and it had become clear that the treaty was actually being abused as a tool to justify the United States’ coercion.

 

Based on Article 10 of the NPT, the DPRK on 12 March 1993 declared its withdrawal from the NPT for the defense of the country’s sovereignty and security and informed the depository states of the fact. Then, when the United States responded for DPRK-US talks, it [DPRK] took measures to unilaterally and temporarily suspend the effectuation of its withdrawal from the NPT — through the DPRK-US joint statement on 11 June 1993 — while DPRK-US talks were underway.

On 21 October 1994 during the Clinton administration, the “DPRK-US Agreed Framework” was adopted to resolve the nuclear issue of the Korean peninsula, but the United States unilaterally scrapped it when the Bush administration was inaugurated. In the “State of the Union Address” on 30 January 2002, the Bush administration even called us part of an “axis of evil.” The harboring of such hostility toward a country by the world’s largest nuclear power state means the greatest nuclear threat to that country. In particular, when the United States announced in March in that year the “Nuclear Posture Review [NPR],” which included us in the “targets for preemptive nuclear strikes,” the security of our country and nation was placed in extremely grave jeopardy of nuclear catastrophes.

 

It had become clear that the effort made through dialogue and the effort exerted based on international law all ended up in smoke. The unique situation on the Korean peninsula, which could be found nowhere else in the world, required a special measure for a solution. The only and last option was to counter “nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons.” With the most serious nuclear threat, the United States was persistently compelling us to possess nuclear weapons.

 

On 10 January 2003, the government of the Republic took a resolute, self-defensive measure of completely withdrawing from the NPT by bringing into effect the withdrawal from it, which it had suspended for 10 years. After delivering itself from the treaty, it [the government of the Republic] turned in the direction of legally and stately weaponizing the entire amount of the plutonium produced in the course of producing electricity from a pilot atomic power plant. It conducted the first nuclear test in October 2006, three years after its withdrawal from the treaty, and the second nuclear test in May 2009.

 

By this, the state of nuclear imbalance in Northeast Asia where nuclear weapons and nuclear umbrellas were packed and where only the DPRK remained as a nuclear vacuum zone was brought to an end. By the deterrence effect provided by the Republic’s possession of nuclear weapons, the danger of the outbreak of a war has noticeably reduced. This is precisely the effort made on the current stage to remove the nuclear threat not through pleas only in words but by deterring the United States’ nuclear weapons with our nuclear weapons.

 

3. DPRK’s Nuclear Policy

 

The position of the government of the Republic to establish a solid peace regime on the Korean peninsula and achieve denuclearization there remains unchanged.

 

The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula — which was pointed out in the 19 September Joint Statement that the Six-Party Talks adopted and announced in 2005 — is the course of turning the entire Korean peninsula into a nuclear-free zone by completely removing in a verifiable manner the existing nuclear threat from outside to the Korean peninsula. Realizing denuclearization requires confidence-building. On the Korean peninsula, which is still in a state of the ceasefire, the sooner a peace agreement is concluded, the quicker the confidence necessary for denuclearization will be built.

 

The mission of the nuclear forces of the DPRK is to deter and repel aggression and attack against the country and the nation until the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the world is realized. The DPRK is invariably maintaining the policy not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states or threaten them with nuclear weapons as long as they do not join the act of invading or attacking us in conspiracy with nuclear weapons states.

 

We are ready to join the international efforts for nuclear non-proliferation and for the safe management of nuclear materials on an equal footing with other nuclear weapons states.

We will produce as many nuclear weapons as we need but will neither join the nuclear arms race nor produce more nuclear weapons than is necessary, and we will join the international efforts for nuclear disarmament on an equal footing with other nuclear weapons states.

 

Regardless of whether the Six-Party Talks are resumed or not, the DPRK, as in the past, will continue to make a consistent effort in the future as well for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and in the rest of the world.

 

III. Nautilus invites your responses

 

The Northeast Asia Peace and Security Network invites your responses to this essay. Please send responses to: bscott@nautilus.org. Responses will be considered for redistribution to the network only if they include the author’s name, affiliation, and explicit consent.

2 thoughts on “Supporting Online Material: North Korean Nuclear Statements (2002-2010)”

Comments are closed.