• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

DPRK Foreign Ministry; DPRK's Stand on Six-Party Talks Reclarified

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

   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.