• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. Urged to Make Political Decision on Six-Way Talks

Korean Central News Agency of DPRK

    Pyongyang, July 6 (KCNA) -- An agreement was reached at the third round of the six-party talks held in Beijing on taking simultaneous actions on the principle of "words for words" and "action for action" and focusing the discussion on the issue of "reward for freeze," as proposed by the DPRK side. But it is quite regretful that a decisive breakthrough was not made towards the final settlement of the nuclear issue. Minju Joson Tuesday says this in a signed commentary. The commentary goes on:
    The U.S. is insisting on its unrealistic and unilateral assertion that it will discuss corresponding measures only when the DPRK has completed the freeze of its nuclear activity and dismantled its nuclear facilities.
    At the talks the DPRK side set forth a broad-minded and flexible proposal based on a great political decision, prompted by the desire to break the present deadlock over the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. and yield substantial results at any cost.
    The participants in the talks except the U.S. positively supported and sympathized with the proposal and expressed their intention to join in the work to implement the reward for freeze proposal as it reflects the concerns of both the DPRK and the U.S. and admits of no argument in view of impartiality and feasibility.
    The U.S. came out with what it called "landmark proposal" at the talks.
    Frankly speaking, the U.S. "proposal" was chiefly aimed to create the impression among the international community that it was making certain efforts for the progress of the talks. So it only made participants in the talks skeptical about the U.S. seeking an ulterior aim in it.
    That was why they dismissed the U.S. "landmark proposal" as complicated, unclear and unfair as it lacked any commitment to observe the principle of "words for words," "action for action."
    If the U.S. truly stands for settling the nuclear issue, it should cool-headedly analyze and judge which one is in the interests of the U.S.
    The solution depends on the U.S. political decision.