Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

U.S. Chief Negotiator's Irresponsible Remarks under Fire

Korean Central News Agency of DPRK via Korea News Service (KNS)

    Pyongyang, November 26 (KCNA) -- Christopher Hill, assistant secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs who is leading the U.S. delegation to the six-way talks reportedly made contradictory remarks about the DPRK at the round-table talks with student representatives of APEC member states on Nov. 19 after participating in the APEC summit talks held in Pusan. He was reported to have made serious accusations against the DPRK, questioning even the reason why it exists. He went the lengths of asserting that north Korea seems to have no other objective than maintaining its power and its policy priority is so and so.
    If it is true that the U.S. chief negotiator at the six-party talks made such remarks it is a very serious matter as they meant totally rejecting the ideology and system chosen by the people of the DPRK themselves.
    Hill who claims to be clever let loose such outcries totally rejecting the system in the DPRK which its people consider as their life and soul. It is not clear whether he said so because of his lack of understanding of the DPRK or he was not aware of the world community's common understanding of the six-party talks.
    He was mean enough to make such provocative remarks revealing the U.S. aim to bring down the system in the DPRK though he talked about a negotiated peaceful settlement at the negotiating table. This helps the DPRK guess what the U.S. really aims at negotiating with it. The government of the DPRK and its system precisely mean the life and soul of the people as they were chosen by themselves. Their present and future would be unthinkable without the DPRK and its system.
    What Hill uttered is in contravention of the spirit of the Sept. 19 Joint Statement which calls for respecting each other's sovereignty and peaceful co-existence.
    If one sits at the negotiating table in pursuance of "regime change" on the basis of the notion that there can be no co-existence though talks are under way, there naturally arises the question as to whether it is possible to continue talks with that one.
    His logic meant the U.S. intention not to recognize the DPRK as a state.
    He seems to consider the six-party talks not as the talks among states but as a mere discussion among non-governmental institutes for policy studies. In the final analysis, Hill's utterances once again proved that the U.S. policy to stifle and overthrow the DPRK at any cost remains unchanged. Otherwise, the president of the U.S. styling itself "super power" would not have backtracked from its international commitment and the U.S. chief negotiator would not have made such irresponsible remarks.
    The U.S., however, seems to misunderstand the DPRK, intoxicated with its successes in bringing about "regime changes" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is it possible to discuss the issue of dismantling nuclear deterrent with those keen only to topple the system in the DPRK, showing not an iota of confidence in their dialogue partner?
    Whenever the U.S. true colors are brought to light, the DPRK more keenly realizes the validity of the Songun policy and the importance of bolstering up its self-defensive deterrent for defending its system. The DPRK is very proud of its Songun policy and its military power.
    The U.S. would be well advised to properly understand the Korean people struggling to defend their dearest socialist system under the uplifted banner of Songun.