People's Democracy

 DPRK Clarifies Stand On Six-Party Talks

THE foreign ministry of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has expressed concern over the fact that, with the six-party talks at hand, some disturbing opinions and assertions, intended to cloud the prospect of solving the nuclear issue, are being heard from inside and outside the US administration. A spokesman of the ministry said so while clarifying the DPRK’s stand on the six-party talks.

Besides the DPR Korea, South Korea and the US, Russia, China and Japan are also to take part in these talks.

The DPRK dubbed as unreasonable and unilateral the US assertion that the DPRK must dismantle its nuclear deterrent force before dialogue if it wants to get aid from the international community. The US has so far not responded to the DPRK’s proposal to conclude a non-aggression treaty with it.

There is also a rumour that Washington wants to form an inspection team involving the other five countries and carry out an inspection to verify Pyongyang’s will to scrap its nuclear programme before dialogue.

The DPRK fears that it this is the US approach to the talks, one may well conclude that the US will join the talks with the sinister aim of forcing the DPRK to scrap its “nuclear programme.” This is a bid to completely disarm the DPRK in return for “security assurances” on a paper, without any binding force. This approach indicates that it will be hard to expect any substantial results from the talks.

The DPRK said its stand on the talks is clear. First, it wants to confirm if the US is willing to make a shift in its Korea policy. For, a key to solving the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US is that the latter make a fundamental shift in its hostile policy toward the former.

One will recall that the nuclear issue deteriorated when the present US regime ditched the DPRK-US Agreed Framework and listed the DPRK as part of an “axis of evil” to be targeted with preemptive nuclear attacks. This means the US will have to give up its hostile policy towards the DPRK in order to solve the issue. This means the US must conclude a legally binding non-aggression treaty with the DPRK, establish diplomatic relations with the latter and stop obstructing economic cooperation between the DPRK and other countries.

At the Beijing talks in April, the US tried to play a trick without making a policy shift. Hence at the coming six-party talks the US will have to give a reply to the proposal the DPRK made at the Beijing talks for a settlement of the nuclear issue. It is only the US reply that will enable the DPRK to judge if the US is willing to make a policy shift or it will continue to play tricks. If it is confirmed that the six-way talks are nothing but another move to disarm the DPRK in the midst of a show of magnanimity, the DPRK cannot be expected to abandon its nuclear deterrent force.

Secondly, the DPRK said it does not ask anyone to provide a guarantee for the security of its socialist system as chosen by its people. It is not a matter to need a guarantee by a third party. It is an insult to the DPRK to talk about a third party guarantee for its system’s “security,” as its system is guaranteed and safeguarded by its own people.

The DPRK proposal for a non-aggression treaty between itself and the US is aimed at preventing a war on the Korean peninsula and guaranteeing the security and prosperity of all the Korean people. The DPRK is not at all asking for a collective “guarantee for the system and for security” from the participants in the multilateral talks. For, it is only the US that is threatening the DPRK, and the US policy toward the DPRK is the very source of a danger of war on the peninsula. Hence the very conception of “collective security guarantee” is meaningless.

The demand that the DPRK demonstrates its willingness “to give up its nuclear programme in exchange for security guarantee” is meant not to solve the nuclear issue by simultaneous action. It is nothing but dishonest jugglery to brand the DPRK as “an offender of law” and legalise international pressure for disarming it.

In view of the extremely hostile relations between the DPRK and the US, there must be simultaneous action by both sides. The DPRK’s view is that shunning simultaneous action in this regard and insisting that the DPRK must act first is, in essence, intended to disarm it and swallow it up. A solution to the problem can be sincerely discussed only through “give and take” talks.

Thirdly, the DPRK said an “earlier inspection” is impossible and unthinkable before the US abandons its hostile policy towards it. The call for an “earlier inspection” of the DPRK’s nuclear facilities is an outrageous interference in its internal affairs and infringement upon its sovereignty.

By abusing the safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the US has so far used the issue of inspection and verification as a means to stifle the DPRK’s system. The US is still trying to completely disarm the DPRK under the pretext of verification. That is why the DPRK views the inspection issue with utmost alertness. The matter of inspection and verification can be discussed only after the confirmation that the US has abandoned its hostile policy and renounced nuclear threats against the DPRK.

Hence the DPRK has demanded that the US should approach the talks with the clear realisation that a shift in its policy towards the DPRK is the key to solving the problem.