• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

KCNA on U.S. Criminal Moves to Escalate Nuclear Stand-off

Korean Central News Agency of DPRK

    Pyongyang, April 9 (KCNA) -- The Korean Central News Agency Thursday issued an indictment accusing the U.S. of driving the military situation on the Korean peninsula to the brink of a nuclear war by escalating the nuclear stand-off behind the scene of dialogue and pushing forward the "strategy of preemptive nuclear attack" at the phase of its implementation. The indictment cited historical facts that the DPRK has made every effort to solve the nuclear issue by singling out the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula as a general goal, taking the initiative of proposing constructive dialogue to realize it and putting forth the most fair and aboveboard proposals.
    The indictment said:
    As soon as the Bush administration came to power in January 2001 it completely suspended the DPRK-U.S. dialogue that started in the period of the Clinton administration, deepening the nuclear crisis and extremely escalating the tensions on the Korean peninsula.
    When the Bush administration insisted on the multiparty talks prompted by a sinister political purpose, dead-set against the DPRK-U.S. direct talks, the DPRK broadmindedly accepted its proposal to have the tripartite talks.
    Even when the U.S. proposed to have the six-way talks the DPRK expressed the readiness to accept it if the offer was prompted by the intention to express the will to make a switchover in its policy towards the DPRK and co-exist with it in peace.
    What is the most important of the reasonable proposals the DPRK advanced for a solution to the DPRK-U.S. nuclear issue is a package solution based on the principle of simultaneous actions.
    The head of the DPRK side at the first round of the six-way talks clarified the principle of implementing the measures to solve the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. through simultaneous actions and set forth detailed formula for a package solution and rder for simultaneous actions to observe the principle.
    The DPRK side at the second round of the six-way talks held in Beijing from February 25 to 28 advanced a flexible proposal calling upon the U.S. to commit itself to" drop its hostile policy towards the DPRK in return for its abandonment of the nuclear weapon rogram" as a first-phase action and appealing to the parties concerned to make a due compensation by way of simultaneous actions in return for the DPRK's dismantlement of its nuclear weapon program on the principle of "action for action" as there was still no onfidence between the DPRK and the U.S. and it was impossible to agree upon the package solution based on the principle of simultaneous actions at one time.
    The dialogue and negotiations for the solution to the DPRK-U.S. nuclear issue suffered repeated setbacks due to the U.S. adamant insistence that the DPRK should abandon its nuclear program first.
    On June 6, 2001 Bush released a "statement on the policy towards north Korea" unilaterally demanding it "accept an early nuclear inspection and reduce its conventional weapons," declaring the U.S. attempt to disarm the DPRK by forcing it to abandon its nuclear program first as a policy at last.
    The U.S. official moves to pressurize the DPRK to abandon its nuclear program first and its hostile acts to bring down its system have become more undisguised since Kelly, a special envoy of the U.S. president, visited the DPRK in early October 2002.
    The U.S. dispatched "special envoys" and "delegations" one after another to European and Asian countries according to its pre-arranged scenario in a bid to "persuade" the governments of the countries to bring the DPRK's "nuclear issue" to the UNSC. And it did not hesitate to perpetrate such an arrogant act as asking south Korea and other Northeast Asian countries not to improve relations with the DPRK.
    The U.S. instigated the International Atomic Energy Agency to adopt two "resolutions" demanding the DPRK scrap its "nuclear program" in a verifiable manner on November 29, 2002, and on January 6, 2003.
    The U.S. demand that the DPRK scrap its nuclear program first is the main obstacle in the way of solving the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. This was clearly proved by three rounds of talks held in Beijing last year and this year.
    And even when the DPRK showed greatest magnanimity, advancing a broad-minded proposal for a simultaneous package solution to the nuclear issue at the tripartite talks and the first round of the six-way talks in Beijing last year, the U.S. demanded it disclose and abandon the non-existent "enriched uranium program," pushing the talks to a collapse.
    It is a well-known fact that the second round of the six-way talks held in Beijing last February proved fruitless due to the U.S. demand that the DPRK dismantle its nuclear program first.
    At the talks the U.S. side did not show any will to make a switchover in its policy but repeated its assertion that the DPRK should abandon its nuclear program first, which had been rejected in the last talks. Furthermore, it made a senseless and far-fetched assertion that it may discuss other issues only after the DPRK completely scraps its nuclear program in a verifiable and irreversible manner, thus deliberately creating obstacles to the talks.
    The U.S., which is technically at war with the DPRK, is accelerating the development of nukes, speeding up the moves to put the strategy of nuclear attack into practice and asking it to come out for negotiations only after scrapping its nuclear program first.
    This is nothing but a brigandish demand that the DPRK unconditionally surrender to the U.S.
    The U.S. would be sadly mistaken if it, turning aside from the just demand of the DPRK, .thinks it will allow itself to be disarmed and gives up its system like Iraq, yielding to Washington's demand that the DPRK scrap its nuclear program first.
    Citing facts proving the U.S. frantic moves to put the "strategy of preemptive nuclear attack" into practice in a bid to contain the DPRK with nukes, the indictment stressed: Now that the U.S. has completely scrapped the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework banning the use of nukes and the threat with them and steadily escalated its nuclear threat to the DPRK in a bid to provoke a nuclear war it is left with no option but to increase its deterrent force for self-defence.
    But for the DPRK's deterrent force to cope with the U.S. "policy of strength," "nuclear policy," a nuclear war would have already broken out on the Korean peninsula.
    Its powerful deterrent force guarantees peace on the Korean peninsula.
    The DPRK will bolster its deterrent force for self-defence unless the U.S. abandons its hostile policy towards the DPRK and stops escalating the nuclear stand-off behind the curtain of dialogue.