Kim Yo Jong, first deputy department director of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea, released the following press statement on July 10:
These days, I have been hearing through the news media a spate of strange signals being transmitted by the Americans with regard to the DPRK.
It was good enough for me to kill breakfast time by watching the TV news about the changes of the Americans’ mind-set who went the length of indicating signals of the possibility of the DPRK-US summit talks.
It is my personal ideas, to all intents and purposes, but I doubt that such a thing as the DPRK-US summit talks would happen this year.
But I’m still questioning it.
That is because an unexpected thing may happen according to the judgment and decision of the top leaders of the two countries.
But what is obvious is that, if the DPRK-US summit talks are needed as someone says, it would be needed for the US side, but there should be a telling on the part of the DPRK to fathom it over the fact that it is unpractical and does not serve us at all.
Let me assume that the DPRK-US summit talks do occur. The thing is that, in this case, the US would have a sigh of relief by means of the continued dialogue alone with our leadership, buying time to be assured by the friendly relations between the top leaders again. But, we have nothing to gain from the negotiation with the US, and we do not even harbour any expectation about it.
Serious contradiction and unsolvable discord exist between the DPRK and the US. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the DPRK-US summit talks are not needed this year and beyond, and for our part, it is not beneficial to us unless the US shows a decisive change in its stand.
Moreover, I think that we should not accept an offer of the summit talks this year, no matter how badly the US wants it, far from talking about its possibility.
I want to say about the three reasons for that in brief: First, the summit talks, if needed, will be needed for the US and they will be unprofitable to us. Second, we will lose time again if we sit face to face with the Americans who have no courage to deal with a new challenge, and it may entail a risk of undermining the special relations that have been maintained between the top leaders. Third, there is no need for us to accept their suggestion as such human scum as Bolton has predicted it.
What the US actually needs right now is neither the summit talks nor its result. Its purpose is to buy time by calming us down and tying us down so as to prevent political disasters in the relations with us while taking advantage of the friendly relations between the top leaders.
And assuming that we hold the summit talks now, it is too obvious that it will only be used as another boring boasting coming from someone’s pride.
The US may still worry about receiving a Christmas gift on the eve of the presidential elections, which it has not received so far.
I consider that it totally depends on how the US behaves itself whether or not it will bump into such a troublesome problem and undergo the pain and suffering.
If it spits out ill-disposed words here and there whenever they feel like doing so from boredom and clings to such useless things as economic pressure or military threats towards us, we will have to wait and see what happens.
I don't have any information about such actions but, to me, it is evident that our leadership will not remain an idle onlooker to various kinds of dangerous and threatening remarks and behaviours of the US towards us.
However, the present situation, in which nothing has happened which the US extremely dreads, makes me think that the unique personal relations between our Chairman and the US President are paying off greatly.
If the US, out of anxiety and fret, carelessly embarks on a dangerous action that will invoke our strong reaction at this time, it is evident that it will be tantamount to waking up a sleeping tiger and that the results won't be interesting.
We should have a proper insight into the ulterior motive of the US behind knocking the tables of the working-level negotiations and summit talks these days.
The US only wishes to buy time, keeping the door to dialogue open and calming us down.
I also have the feeling that the US may have a dark design to return to at least something like the Hanoi negotiation conditions.
At this point of time when we look back on the early 2019, the US had the possibility of disabling our nuclear mainstay first and messing up our long-term nuclear programme by putting on airs of lifting sanctions partially.
It can be said that was the time when we were making a great venture at all risks in order to break the chains of sanctions and promote our people's living standards at the earliest possible date, despite the fact that the bargaining terms were not in our favour.
When the DPRK-US summit talks took place in Panmunjom on June 30, 2019, the US President preached north Korea's bright economic prospects and economic aid and asked for further denuclearization measures as a prerequisite. At that time, our Chairman made clear his position to the US President that we shall never barter our system and the safety and future of our people for such things as the lifting of sanctions with no guarantee in the hope of gorgeous transformation and the realization of a dream of rapid economic prosperity. He also stated that the sufferings the US has imposed upon us have now turned into our hatred for the US and this hatred would drive us to break through the blockade of persistent sanctions led by the US and to live our own way and by our own efforts.
We have since then completely ruled out the issue of lifting sanctions from the agenda of negotiations with the US.
I believe that the previous theme of the DPRK-US negotiations, that is, "denuclearization measures versus lifting of sanctions", should change into a formula of "withdrawal of hostility versus resumption of DPRK-US negotiations".
We are fully capable of living under any sanctions, so there is no reason for us to be driven by the US.
I hope that the US, at this point of time, should not harbour such a pipedream as trying to re-strike a bargain which was put on the negotiating tables at the Hanoi summit talks, that is, the partial lifting of sanctions versus the permanent dismantlement of large-scale nuclear facilities like the ones in Nyongbyon, the central nerve of our nuclear development.
The personal feelings of our Chairman towards President Trump are undoubtedly solid and good, but our government should not adjust its tactics on the US and our nuclear programme depending upon the relations with the US President.
We have to deal with President Trump and the succeeding US administration, and the US at large.
The recent remarks of the US high-ranking officials alone indicate us what we should do in the future, regardless of the relations with the US President.
The US State Department expressed the intention of dialogue, and even the US President indicated the possibility of the DPRK-US summit talks while repeatedly mentioning the good relations with our leadership. But the US Defence Secretary uttered again the so-called "CVID" and did not refrain from making such hostile remarks as labelling my country as a "rogue state".
I feel reluctant to comment if such discord between the US President and his subordinates is an intentional scheme or a result from the President's loose grip of power.
No matter how good the relations between the top leaders of the DPRK and the US are, the US is bound to negate and be hostile to us.
It is high time for us to stay alert and allow not a single mistake to be made, being inclined to the personal relations with President Trump.
Recently, the US extended by one year the Presidential Executive Orders on sanctions against the DPRK and took issue with our "human rights situation", clamouring that the "human rights issue" must be "settled" prior to the improved relations between the DPRK and the US. It even went further to re-list our country as the "worst state of human trafficking" and "sponsor of terrorism". Such targeted provocations in each and every case show that the US policy hostile towards the DPRK can never be withdrawn under any circumstances.
Now that the inveterate negation of the US towards the DPRK has become "endemic", we have to anticipate its endless hostile acts against us, even if it tides itself over the current "crisis" of presidential election. I think that we should put more efforts to strengthen our capability to cope with the US hostilities towards the DPRK that would continue in the coming days, rather than considering the personal relations with the US President.
We must develop a long-term plan to cope with and contain long-term threats from the US and safeguard our national interests and sovereignty under such conditions, and strengthen and steadily increase our practical capabilities.
The attempt to resume the DPRK-US denuclearization negotiations is an issue wanted by the US as it is pressed for time, not ours.
There is no need for us to sit face to face with the US right now, who is obsessed with the thoughts on what and how it can get more from us over the negotiating table, and I think it is an issue to be decided when major changes are made in the attitude of the US.
It would be easier and more favourable for the US to rack its brains to make our nukes no threat to the US, rather than racking it to dispossess our nukes.
We have not a slightest intention to pose a threat to the US and our Chairman has already made it clear to President Trump.
Everything will go smoothly if they leave us alone and make no provocation on us.
We would like to make it clear that it does not necessarily mean the denuclearization is not possible. But what we mean is that it is not possible at this point of time. I remind the US that the denuclearization on the Korean peninsula can be realized only when there are major changes made on the other side, i.e. the irreversible, simultaneous major steps to be taken in parallel with our actions.
I have to point out clearly that it does not mean the lifting of sanctions when I refer to major changes from the other side.
I personally did not want to write this kind of statement towards Americans, if not towards south Korea.
Last but not least, I would like to give my impression on the celebrations for the US Independence Day that I've seen on TV a few days ago.
I have got permission from the Chairman to personally obtain, for sure, the DVD of the celebrations for the US Independence Day in the future, if possible.
The Chairman entrusted me with conveying his wishes to President Trump that he would certainly achieve great successes in his work.