Ri Thae Song, vice-minister of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK, issued the following press statement on September 23:
The issue of the declaration of the termination of war on the Korean peninsula has emerged again at the 76th Session of the UN General Assembly.
It holds a symbolic meaning in that it is a political declaration of the termination of the long-term ceasefire that the Korean peninsula has been in so far.
And it is clear that to declare the termination of war is what has to be dealt with for the establishment of peace-keeping mechanism on the peninsula in the future.
Nothing is more desirable than that peace comes to the Korean peninsula just by relevant parties holding a ceremony while having photos taken with the declaration document on the termination of war with no legal binding force.
But the current reality proves that the adoption of the declaration of the termination of war is something premature.
The whole world knows that the Minuteman-3 ICBM test-launches in Vandenberg air force base in California in the US mainland in February and August this year, the hasty declaration of the termination of the US-south Korea missile guidelines in May this year and the US approval for the sale of billions of dollars worth military hardware to Japan and south Korea are all targeted at the DPRK.
We are also following with alert the US recent decision to transfer a nuclear-powered submarine building technology to Australia.
No one can vouch for it that the mere declaration of the termination of war would lead to the withdrawal of the policy of hostility to the DPRK under the present situation on the peninsula inching close to a touch-and-go situation.
It is by no means accidental that some view that starting discussion about it seems difficult at the moment, given differing interests and methods of calculation of relevant parties over the declaration of the termination of war.
Underlying all the issues cropping up on the Korean peninsula is, without exception, the US policy of hostility toward the DPRK.
The US forces and a huge number of its latest war assets which have already been deployed in or are moving to the Korean peninsula and its vicinity, including the ground, waters, air and underwater, and war drills annually held under various codenames all point to the US policy of hostility to the DPRK getting more vicious day by day.
The DPRK's just measures to bolster up its defence capability to cope with the US military threat to bring us down by force are described as "provocations" while the arms buildup escalated by the US and its vassal forces to threaten the DPRK is justified as "deterrent building". Such American-style double-dealing attitude is also a product of the policy of hostility to the DPRK.
Even though the termination of war is declared hundreds of times, nothing will change as long as the political circumstances around the DPRK remain unchanged and unless the US abandons its hostile policy.
On the contrary, the declaration will entail disastrous consequences of upsetting the strategic balance in the region and plunging the north and the south into an unending arms race, with the US-south Korea alliance growing stronger.
What's clear is that as long as there remains the US policy of hostility to the DPRK, the biggest stumbling block to ending the war, the termination of war will merely be nominal even if it is declared.
All facts prove that it is still too early to declare the termination of war.
It should be clearly understood that the declaration of the termination of war is of no help at all in stabilizing the situation of the Korean peninsula at the moment, but can rather be misused as a smokescreen to cover up the US policy of hostility.
We have already clarified our official stand that the declaration of the termination of war is not a "present" and it might become a mere scrap of paper in a moment according to changes in situation.
The US withdrawal of double standards and policy of hostility is top priority in stabilizing the situation of the Korean peninsula and ensuring peace on it.