Memorandum of DPRK Foreign Ministry
Date: 04/03/2005 | Source: KCNA.co.jp (English) | Read original version at source
Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- The Foreign Ministry of the DPRK released a memorandum on March 2 to clearly explain why it has decided that it would go out to the talks only when there are justification to participate in the six-party talks and mature conditions for them.
Follows the full text of the memorandum:
The international community is now voicing strong support and solidarity for the just self-defensive step taken by the DPRK as regards the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. and the principled stand taken by the DPRK as regards the six-party talks.
But the United States is paying no heed to this just demand of the DPRK, insisting that it come out to the six-party talks without preconditions.
Some forces toeing the U.S. line continue making a series of undesirable assertions that the DPRK too strongly reacted to the U.S. though it took a moderate attitude, the DPRK reneged on its international commitment and pressure should be put upon the DPRK for the resumption of the six-party talks.
The U.S. is wholly to blame for the fact that the talks have not yet been resumed and the solution to the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. has been delayed.
The DPRK Foreign Ministry issues the memorandum to clearly explain the reason why it has decided it would go out to the talks only when there are the justification to participate in them and mature conditions for them.
1. The DPRK is left with no justification to sit at the negotiating table with the U.S. for the six-party talks or bilateral talks.
The basic key to the solution of the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. is for the U.S. to make a switchover from its hostile policy toward the DPRK to a policy of peaceful co-existence with the DPRK as the issue is a product of the extremely hostile policy of the Bush administration.
The second-term Bush administration, just as it did in its first- term, adopted it as its policy not to co-exist with the DPRK but bring down the political system chosen by the Korean people themselves, thus eliminating any justification for the DPRK to participate in the six-party talks.
The Bush administration asserts that it is not hostile toward the DPRK and it has no intention to invade the latter but, in actuality, set it as its "ultimate aim" to "bring down the system" in the DPRK and has persistently pursued its double-dealing tactics of carrot and the stick.
All this has been clearly expressed in the course of adopting the policy of the second-term Bush administration.
Speaking at the inaugural ceremony of the second-term president on Jan. 20, Bush declared that it is the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world.
He blustered that the U.S. would spread liberty and democracy of American style to the whole world and, to this end, would not rule out the use of force, when necessary.
In his state of the union address on Feb. 2 he, not mentioning the six-party talks and the peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue, once again vociferated about an "end to the tyranny," asserting that the U.S. will force north Korea to abandon its nuclear ambition.
U.S. State Secretary Rice made it clear in which countries tyranny should be terminated as claimed by Bush at the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 18, 2005, two days before his inaugural address.
Branding the DPRK together with Cuba, Iran, Belarus and some other countries strongly advocating independence against the U.S. as "outposts of tyranny," Rice asserted that the U.S. would stand by the people subject to tyranny and spread American style liberty and democracy and urge north Korea to abandon its nuclear ambition.
In this regard some forces made clumsy excuses, saying that Bush did not directly mention the DPRK as a country of "tyranny" and Rice made the remarks in her private capacity only and that it is desirable to interpret her address in its whole context.
If so, is Rice's declaration of the U.S. policy her private address and did not Bush define the DPRK as an outpost of "tyranny"?
Speaking at the ceremony marking the 20th anniversary of the foundation of the National Foundation for Democracy in the U.S. on Nov. 6, 2003, during his first-term office, Bush clearly defined the DPRK as an "outpost of tyranny," asserting that the U.S. commitment to democracy is tested in countries like Cuba, Myanmar, north Korea and Zimbabwe, outposts of oppression.
Deep-rooted is the real intention of the U.S. not to co-exist with the DPRK under any circumstances but seek to bring down its system by disarming it.
This remains unchanged.
U.S. official figures have not expressed any intention to co-exist with the DPRK or make a switchover in its hostile policy toward the DPRK in any recent remarks made by them.
The world people are now interpreting the Bush group's talk about "spread of liberty" as a "paradox disturbing the world" and a "poisonous logic pushing the world to a new war," and even the U.S. allies are cursing and ridiculing American style "liberty and democracy", saying where is tyranny touted by the U.S., it is designating a series of anti-American countries which are out of favor with it as "outposts of tyranny" and it is styling itself the master of this planet.
As a matter of fact, the DPRK has shown its utmost patience and magnanimity for the last four years since the Bush administration took office.
However, the U.S. has stuck to its hostile policy, unreasonably ignoring the DPRK, its dialogue partner, prompted by the inveterate idea of rejection that it will not co-exist with the DPRK from the ideological point of view.
It is widely known a fact that no sooner had Bush taken office as president than he suspended all dialogues and negotiations with the DPRK which had been under way during the former administration. In his state of the union address late in January 2002, Bush designated the DPRK as part of an "axis of evil" and, in March of the same year, listed it as a target of the U.S. preemptive nuclear attack.
He, instead of retracting his remarks listing the DPRK as part of "an axis of evil," termed the government in the DPRK installed by its own people as an "outpost of tyranny", singling it out as the object to be removed to the last, outcries worse than those remarks.
How can we sit at the negotiating table with the U.S. given that it has rejected the government of the DPRK?
The wrong doings committed by the U.S. have deprived it of any justification to sit with the DPRK.
The DPRK and the U.S. are in the relationship of belligerency and at war technically.
Therefore, it is quite natural that the DPRK has manufactured nukes for self-defence and continues to do so to cope with the policy of the Bush administration aimed at mounting a preemptive nuclear attack on it.
In order to cope with the U.S. policy to stifle it with nukes, the DPRK pulled out of the NPT on Jan. 10, 2003 and legitimately made nukes, not bound to the international treaty.
Whenever it took a step for self-defence to cope with the U.S. stepped-up policy to isolate and stifle it, the DPRK opened the step to the world and has built nuclear deterrent in a transparent manner, informing the U.S. of it each time.
We are also not bound to any international treaty or law as far as the missile issue is concerned. Some forces claim that the DPRK's moratorium on the missile launch still remains valid.
In September 1999, the period of the previous U.S. administration, we announced the moratorium on the missile launch while dialogue was under way but the DPRK-U.S. dialogue was totally suspended when the Bush administration took office in 2001.
Accordingly, we are not bound to the moratorium on the missile launch at present.
As everybody knows, the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK compels it to bolster its self-defensive nuclear arsenal.
Not only the public in the U.S. but the world public are becoming increasingly critical of the Bush administration, asserting that its remarks about "tyranny" and hostile policy toward the DPRK resulted in rendering the six-party talks abortive.
Senator Kerry, who ran for presidency on the Democratic ticket during the 2004 U.S. presidential election, when interviewed by the New York Times on Sept. 12 openly criticized the Bush administration, saying that it refused to directly negotiate with north Korea after its emergence, bringing a nuclear nightmare. Foreign Policy Focus, the organ of the U.S. institute for international policy studies, in an article dated Feb. 22, 2005, said that Bush has taken a very rough approach towards north Korea in military and diplomatic aspects since the outset of his office and this let it have access to nukes.
In an editorial dated Feb. 11, 2005 the New York Times said that north Korea declared its access to nuclear weapons because the Bush administration made an error while leading it to isolation. It justly criticized the Bush administration, saying that its reaction to north Korea till now has been unreasonable and, accordingly, there should be a radical switchover in its future engagement.
The U.S. claims that it has not pursued a hostile policy towards north Korea, repeatedly making empty words that it has never been hostile to north Korea and has no intention to attack it.
Is there any act more hostile than branding the system chosen by the Korean people as "tyranny" and threatening to bring down it to the last.
By nature, the remarks that there is no intention for invasion themselves are shameless ones which can be made only by the U.S. that has not hesitated to overthrow the regimes of other countries and invade them, and such reckless remarks can never mean a drop of its hostile policy toward the DPRK.
The Washington Post in an editorial dated Feb. 22, 2005, said that a breakthrough might be made in the settlement of the nuclear issue if just three words of no hostile intention are said to the Pyongyang government but Bush and Rice have never used such expression. This emphasized that it is essential for the U.S. to make a switchover in its hostile policy toward the DPRK.
The nuclear issue can never be settled unless the U.S. shows political willingness to make a policy switchover and co-exist with the DPRK.
We have shown utmost patience and magnanimity to settle the nuclear issue and improve the DPRK-U.S. relations for the last four years since the Bush administration took office.
The U.S. should apologize for the above-said remarks calling for "ending tyranny" and withdraw them, clarify its political willingness to renounce the hostile policy aimed at a "regime change" in the DPRK and co-exist with the DPRK in peace and show it in practice.
We can negotiate with the U.S. only when it provides such conditions and justification for the resumption of the talks.
The DPRK will not act such a fool as going out to the talks at the request of the one who totally rejected it and works hard to "destroy" it.
2. It is imperative for the U.S. to rebuild the groundwork of the six-party talks and create conditions and atmosphere for their resumption as quickly as possible.
It was thanks to the sincere and patient efforts of the DPRK to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula that the principle of "words for words" and "action for action" and the principle of "reward for freeze", the first-phase step for the settlement of the nuclear issue, were agreed upon at the third round of the six-party talks held in June 2004.
The talks reached the common understanding that the U.S. should make a switchover in its hostile policy toward the DPRK.
Such agreement and common understanding are the basis for advancing the talks.
The U.S. delegation agreed upon such principles at the third round of the talks, under the pressure of the public opinion at home and abroad, and had no option but to make a verbal promise that it would not be hostile to the DPRK.
At the talks on June 24, 2004, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kelly said that the U.S. side would assess and seriously examine the DPRK side's proposal on reward for freeze. State Secretary Powell, at the contact with the DPRK foreign minister during the ministerial meeting of the ASEAN regional forum held in Jakarta on July 2, 2004, said that the U.S. is ready to abide by the principle of "words for words", "action for action" and "results for results" and will seriously examine the DPRK's proposal on "reward for freeze."
But the U.S. reneged on all the agreements and common understanding less than one month after the talks, totally destroying the groundwork of the talks.
The second term Bush administration is now talking about the "resumption of the six-way talks without preconditions" in disregard of the DPRK's demand for totally rebuilding the groundwork of the talks, which had been destroyed by it during its first term.
Kelly, the then assistant secretary of State who headed the delegation of the U.S. side to the talks, said at a U.S. Senate hearing on July 15, 2004, that the "landmark proposal" made by the U.S. at the third round of the six-party talks is a proposal which envisages a reward for the DPRK only after it totally scraps all its nuclear programs first. Even if the nuclear program is abandoned, it will not lead soon to the normalization of the bilateral relations and, accordingly, all other issues such as missile,
conventional weapon and human rights issues should be settled, he added.
After all, he insisted on the U.S. assertion that the DPRK dismantle its nuclear program first, thus rejecting the principles of "words for words" and "action for action".
He also totally denied the principle of "reward for freeze" when he said that the U.S. has no intention to negotiate with north Koreans, there can be no reward for north Korea and the U.S. will not bring any benefit to it.
On July 21, a week after that statement of Kelly, Bolton, U.S. under-secretary of State, said in Seoul that the U.S. does not trust the proposed nuclear freeze and there will be no reward for Pyongyang unless Washington's demand for the total dismantlement of its nuclear program is met. On July 23 he told reporters in Tokyo that north Korea should abandon its nuclear program as Libya did.
The U.S. secretary of State, too, said at press conferences that the U.S. wants Pyongyang to follow in the footsteps of Libya, demanding it dismantle its nuclear program first. Armitage, deputy secretary of State, asserted that if the U.S. took any positive gesture toward north Korea, though symbolic, it would mean making a reward for the bad behavior or sending a wrong message to north Korea.
In fact, such contradictory behaviors of the U.S. inside and outside the venue of the talks took the world people by surprise.
Even since the start of its second term, the Bush administration has not made any trustworthy sincere effort to create conditions for the talks, persistently insisting on the assertion that the DPRK dismantle its nuclear program first on the basis of CVID.
On Feb. 22, 2005, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of State said that the five parties consider the conditions to be mature for the talks but it is only north Korea that denies it.
U.S. Secretary of State Rice told reporters on Feb. 3 that all parties to the six-way talks will have to persuade north Koreans to choose a strategic option for abandoning its nuclear program by accepting CVID. On the same day, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of State said that the proposal made by the U.S. at the third round of the talks is valid and it is high time north Korea returned to the negotiating table to discuss it.
As for the "proposal", it is, in essence, the demand that the DPRK dismantle its nuclear program first, the assertion veiled by what it called "landmark". It makes no mention of the principles of "words for words" and "action for action", which had been accepted by the U.S., too, and especially of the U.S. promise to renounce its hostile policy. That was why on July 24, 2004, the DPRK, through a spokesman for its Foreign Ministry, dismissed the "proposal" as one not deserving even a passing note.
Later, this stand of the DPRK was officially notified to the U.S. side at the DPRK-U.S. contact in New York on August 11, 2004.
The delegation of the Bush administration declared at the third round of the six-way talks that it does not take a hostile attitude towards the DPRK.
But, it has since resorted without hesitation to more frantic hostile acts aimed at toppling the system of the DPRK.
On July 21, 2004, less than one month after the third round of the talks, U.S. Congress passed what it called "North Korean Human Rights Act" to legally provide a financial and material guarantee for the activities to bring down the system in the DPRK.
Under this act, U.S. Congress is to allot 24 million U.S. dollars every year to individuals and organizations supporting the activities for "freedom" and "improvement of human rights performance". Out of this fund two million dollars will be spent every year to massively smuggle transistors into the DPRK and extend the broadcasting time of Radio Free Asia to 12 hours.
On Oct. 21, 2004, a spokesman for the White House announced that the "act" endorsed by President Bush would focus on defectors from the north Korean regime.
Commenting on the nature of this "act", radio Voice of America, too, said that the U.S. decision to allocate 24 million U.S. dollars every year as part of its official government budget, the first of its kind, is meaningful in that it has laid down the groundwork for putting pressure on the north Korean regime in two aspects of nuclear and human rights. The "act" is a strategy aimed to overthrow the system of north Korea under the pretext of "protection of defectors" from it, it added.
George Hage, member of the National Assembly of France who is member of its Foreign Relations Commission, said in an open questionnaire to the French foreign minister on Feb. 15, 2005: The study of the Korean issue shows that the sovereignty of the DPRK has been consistently violated. U.S. Congress passed a bill calling for spending 24 million dollars in a bid to destabilize the Pyongyang government.
At the working meeting of PSI member nations held in Norway early in August 2004 when preparations were made for the fourth round of the six-way talks, the U.S. decided to stage naval blockade exercises in the waters off Japan between October 26 and 27.
And it did not hide the fact that the exercises were targeted against the DPRK.
The U.S. secretary of State flew into Tokyo on Oct. 23, three days before the start of the exercises and stated that PSI exercises are an expression of concern of the international community over north Korea and a drill to check its bad behavior.
On the day the exercises were kicked off, Under-Secretary of State Bolton told aboard a combat ship that clear is the threat from north Korea, the exercises are so efficient as to make businesses give up trade with north Korea and other countries involved in the proliferation of weapons and they are of weighty significance as they are the first drill in the north Pacific. He did not conceal the fact that the PSI exercises are targeted against the DPRK.
The U.S. military threat was not confined to this.
On June 29, 2004, right after the third round of the six-way talks, the U.S. Department of Defence announced a plan to deploy three squadrons of F-117 Stealth fighter-bombers of the U.S. Air Force in south Korea within three months and started their deployment.
And it announced that it would permanently keep two Aegis destroyers equipped with the latest missile system in the East Sea of Korea, and deployed them to be ready for action.
Having already listed the DPRK as one of "its targets of nuclear preemptive attacks", the Bush administration announced that it worked out "New Operation Plan 5026" and "OPLAN 5027-04" from the beginning of 2004 and since stepped up the shipment of huge armed forces into south Korea, The U.S. announced a "combat power buildup program," which calls for investing 11 billion U.S. dollars in south Korea, in May 2003 and increased the investment up to 13 billion dollars under the signboard of "relocation
of combat forces" in the middle of 2004 to massively ship the latest war equipment into it.
What is more serious is that the U.S. declared it would supply new type missiles capable of penetrating underground facilities in the DPRK to the U.S. forces in south Korea on a priority basis.
The July 12th, 2004, issue of the U.S. weekly Defense News, commenting on this, disclosed that the U.S. decided to deploy six Bunker Burst missiles by the end of 2005.
The Bush administration has persistently conducted a psychological warfare and smear operation against the DPRK, letting loose a spate of vituperation against the dialogue partner and pulling it up over this or that issue.
It even made public a report every year in which it raised the oft-repeated hue and cry over such fictions as "drug smuggling", "flesh trafficking" and "religious suppression" as part of its smear campaign against the DPRK. As if it were not enough with this, the U.S. has faked up the story about the "transfer of nuclear substance", chilling the atmosphere of dialogue.
The U.S. spread more than once misinformation that the DPRK secretly sold uranium hexafluoride and fluorine gas to Iran, it is going to hand over special motors for nuclear plants to it and that Pyongyang transferred nuclear substance to Libya via Pakistan.
This is nothing but an attempt to charge the DPRK with the "proliferation of nuclear substance" in a bid to tarnish its image and create an atmosphere for bringing international pressure to bear upon it.
The DPRK has never made any deal in the nuclear field with neither Iran nor Libya nor any other country.
Even leading media in the U.S. put it that American investigators admitted that there is no way to ascertain the origin of nuclear substance found in the nuclear substance container in Libya considered to be of north Korean origin as there is no nuclear substance sample of north Korea and American experts were skeptical, admitting that it is hard to draw a definite conclusion as the analysis of samples of uranium hexafluoride is different from that of DNA test. This disclosed the sinister aim sought by the U.S.
As seen above, the U.S. has increased political and diplomatic pressure and military threat to the DPRK while going so shameless as to demand the DPRK come out to the six-party talks as quickly as possible as there are mature conditions for them.
This reminds one of the "gunboat diplomacy" pursued by big countries to occupy smaller countries in the past 18th-19th centuries.
It is foolish of the U.S. to calculate that the DPRK will come out to the talks and yield to it under its military pressure.
All these moves of the U.S. are a clear manifestation of its hostile policy toward the DPRK.
The DPRK's demand that the U.S. roll back its hostile policy and rebuild the groundwork of the six-party talks is not a precondition.
The Bush administration has not taken any practical measure to rebuild the groundwork of the third round of the six-party talks. Conditions can not be automatically created for the talks with the passage of time.
The U.S. totally negated the ideology and system chosen by the Korean people themselves and the freedom and democracy of their own style and, at the same time, has become more undisguised in its hostile moves to bring down the system in the DPRK. Then will it be reasonable to say that conditions have been created for the talks?
All the facts go to prove that the U.S. has not been interested in settling the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. through the six-party talks from the outset but has only pursued the aim of going ahead with fruitless talks as it thinks fit in a bid to gain time and create an atmosphere for imposing phased pressure upon the DPRK and implementing its policy to isolate and blockade it.
Gallucci, special envoy for negotiations with the DPRK in the former U.S. administration, in his interview with Kyodo on June 18, 2004, criticized the Bush administration for seeking a "regime change" in north Korea and refusing to have full-fledged negotiations with it.
Foreign Policy Focus, the organ of the U.S. institute for international policy studies, in its article on February 22, 2005, said that Bush has held the six-party talks with a final aim to seek change of Pyongyang's regime while openly talking about the world without the Pyongyang regime. This is a strategy pursued by Bush.
The sinister purpose sought by the U.S. is clearly revealed by the fact that it turned blind eyes to the secret nuclear activities south Korea conducted in a premeditated manner at its tacit connivance and under its manipulation while persistently raising a hue and cry over the non-existent "uranium enrichment program" of the DPRK.
As far as the "uranium enrichment program" is concerned, the DPRK has no such program.
The U.S. talked about peaceful negotiated solution to the nuclear issue and the resumption of the talks before making any sincere efforts to rebuild their groundwork. This is nothing but a gimmick to evade its responsibility.
If the U.S. truly stands for the negotiated settlement of the nuclear issue between the two countries it should rebuild the groundwork of the talks it had destroyed unilaterally, renounce its hostile policy aimed at a "regime change" in the DPRK through practical actions and opt for co-existing with the DPRK.
Our demand is that the U.S. make a switchover in its policy.
But, without showing any willingness to make it, the Bush administration is demanding the DPRK come out to the talks. This is nothing but a trick to put the DPRK in the dock, force it to dismantle its nuclear weapons and seize it by force of arms in the end.
Bush blustered that the U.S. would force the DPRK to disarm itself during his election campaign in Wisconsin on August 18, 2004, and on other occasions.
It is not hard to guess what the U.S. has in mind. Washington is sadly mistaken to think that the DPRK would meekly dismantle its nuclear weapons it has made with much effort.
The DPRK clarified in an answer given by a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry on August 23, 2004, and on other occasions that the U.S. should not dream of forcing it to lay down its arms.
The U.S. had better bear this deep in mind.
Japan is now behaving without discretion, talking about "unconditional return to the talks" and "sanctions", pursuant to the U.S. policy.
By nature, Japan has no qualification to participate in the six-party talks as it is a faithful servant for the U.S.
Is there any need to invite even its servant to the talks as his American master's participation in the talks is enough?
However, Japan has gone so impertinent as to contemplate applying sanctions against the DPRK. The DPRK has closely followed such move of Japan.
The DPRK's principled stand to achieve the goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and seek a peaceful negotiated settlement of the nuclear issue still remains unchanged.
The DPRK will go to the talks anytime if the U.S. takes a trustworthy sincere attitude and moves to provide conditions and justification for the resumption of the six-party talks.
The Bush administration may not show any sincerity and while away time, repeatedly talking about the resumption of the six-party talks despite the just demand of the DPRK. That would do the DPRK nothing bad.
The Bush administration has so far undisguisedly pursued hostile policy toward the DPRK in a bid to topple its system. This overturned the groundwork of the six-party talks and removed all conditions and justification for holding dialogue, blocking the settlement of the nuclear issue. These acts are bound to be recorded in history and the U.S. will have to pay dear prices for them.