• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Spokesman for DPRK Foreign Ministry on declaration adopted at G-8 summit

KCNA

    Pyongyang, June 6 (KCNA) -- A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry answered the following answer to a question put by KCNA today in connection with the fact that the declaration adopted at the recent G-8 summit included the DPRK's issue: The recent G-8 summit held in France made public a declaration faulting the DPRK under the manipulation of the U.S.
    The declaration charged that the DPRK has not complied with the safeguards accord (SA) of the International Atomic Energy Agency, backpedalling its international commitment.
    As already declared, the DPRK pulled out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) after going through necessary procedures according to international law and it is, accordingly, no longer bound to the SA.
    As far as the issue of nuclear deterrent force is concerned, the DPRK has the same legal status as the U.S. and other states possessing nuclear deterrent forces which are not bound to any international law.
    Such being a stark fact, the U.S. is working hard to groundlessly charge only the DPRK with the "violation of international law". The U.S. seeks a very sinister political aim through this.
    This indicates that the U.S., while paying lip-service to the "peaceful settlement" of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, is, in fact, seeking to bring the DPRK to its knees by putting pressure on it.
    Participants in the summit accepted an article attacking the DPRK as dictated by the U.S., taking the DPRK for a member state of the NPT. This is either a vivid expression of their ignorance of international law or their misuse of the law for a political purpose.
    The U.S. wantonly violates international laws unfavorable for it but resorts to such arbitrary practices as justifying its preposterous charges by unreasonably invoking international law, when necessary.
    It can not but be an expression of mean flattery to favour the U.S. arbitrary practices in pursuit of their immediate interests.
    Participants in the summit can never flee from the responsibility for seriously debasing the independent status granted by international law through their indiscreet act.