Asia Times: Full text of North Korea's statement


	February 24, 2001	atimes.com

Editorials

Full text of North Korea's statement

Spokesman for DPRK Foreign Ministry on new US administration's policy towards DPRK

PYONGYANG, February 22 (KCNA) - A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK Wednesday released a statement as regards the new US administration's policy towards the DPRK. The statement says:

There are a variety of opinions in the US over the issue of its policy towards the DPRK, which draw its serious attention.

Foreign and national security policy team of the new US administration are increasingly assertive for a "hardline stance" towards Pyongyang, claiming that the former Clinton administration only offered things to the north, tempted by it, the new administration would pursue an "engagement policy" different from that of the Clinton administration and it would make "phased access" and "conditional and strict reciprocity."

This once again disclosed the US aggressive and brigandish true intention to stop the DPRK-US relations from developing in the direction of reconciliation, cooperation and improved ties in keeping with the present international trend towards peace and stability and break the DPRK's will with "strength." This compels us to heighten vigilance.

If this is an official stand of the new US administration towards the DPRK, this can not but draw a serious attention.

Both the DPRK and the US agreed to remove the root cause of long-standing distrust, confrontation and misunderstanding and normalize relations in the Geneva DPRK-US agreed framework and the New York DPRK-US joint communique, etc. Accordingly, both sides are committed to terminate the hostile relations, build confidence and remove their apprehension.

The "conditional reciprocity" and "phased access" touted by the US, therefore, mean that it would fulfil its commitments only when the DPRK moves first.

In other words, it wants the DPRK to totally disarm itself first. The US is seriously mistaken if it thinks that Pyongyang will accept its demand.

It is the consistent stand of the DPRK that it will be able to clear the US of its worries over its security only when it assures the DPRK that Washington does not threaten the DPRK's security by taking substantial measures to terminate the hostile relations.

As for the "reciprocity" asserted by the US it has never offered anything to the DPRK gratis but caused only losses to it.

The DPRK-US agreed framework calls for simultaneous actions on the part of the two sides and the DPRK has so far kept its nuclear power facilities frozen according to it.

However, the US has not sincerely implemented its commitments under the agreed framework, causing huge losses to the DPRK.

The LWR project which had been scheduled to be completed by 2003 is unlikely to become a reality and the US has not yet set out even a timetable for the offer of heavy oil for a new fiscal year that began from October 22 last year.

The US is obliged to compensate for the DPRK's loss of electricity caused by the delayed LWR project. If it does not honestly implement the agreed framework as today, there is no need for us to be bound to it any longer.

We cannot but consider the existence of the KEDO as meaningless under the present situation where no one can tell when the LWR project will be completed.

The United States must clearly know that we cannot wait for its completion for an indefinite period.

The US insisted on establishing the NMD allegedly to cope with the "missile threat" from the DPRK, calling it a "rogue state", not away from its outdated way of thinking, though humankind greeted the new century of genuine peace after putting an end to the 20th century marked with war, confrontation and blood.

This is a brigandish logic.

We advanced such reasonable proposals as declaring a moratorium on the test-fire of long-range missiles while the missile negotiations are under way because the US asserted that our missiles for self-defence pose a threat to it.

We made to the US side a series of reasonable proposals that we might accept a substitute satellite launch if our satellite launch posed a threat to the US security, though it is no more than scientific and technological development merely for a peaceful purpose and that we might stop the missile export if the relevant compensation is made in hard currency because the missile export is aimed to earn foreign currency. But the new US administration is not poised to seriously study the issue.

As there is no agreement between the DPRK and the US, we will not be bound to our pledge related to the missile issue raised during the previous US administration.

We decided not to launch long-range missiles while the missile negotiations are under way but we will not indefinitely maintain this moratorium.

We will not remain a passive onlooker to the things which only hamstring our scientific and technological development.

We are always ready for all events.

back to the top

©2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.

Asia Times Online is designed and produced by Multimedia Asia Co., Ltd.