[Cankor] Report #199

[cankor at cankor.ca]

Dear subscriber,

Welcome to issue #199 of the CanKor Report.

For articles not original to CanKor, direct links are available in the
Contents section, should you wish to consult the originals on the internet.
If the links no longer function, you may refer to the full text articles
appended to the issue.

For back issues, archives and other content, please visit our website:
http://www.cankor.ca

The CanKor team

*************************************************
CANADA-KOREA ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SERVICE
CanKor # 199
Friday, 4 March 2005
*************************************************

Intensified diplomatic activities are set in motion as Chinese chief
negotiator to the six-party talks Wu Dawei meets his US counterpart,
Ambassador Christopher Hill, in Seoul on Friday. He also meets with ROK
Unification Minister Chung Dong-young and Seoul's chief the six-party
delegate Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon. Song will fly to Moscow next
week, and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to visit Seoul
late this month.
Prior to Wu's arrival in Seoul, the North Korean Foreign Ministry released a
lengthy Memorandum to explain the DPRK's conditions for returning to
six-party talks. The full text of the Memorandum is reproduced in this issue
of CanKor.
*************************************************

Contents:
1. CHINESE CHIEF NEGOTIATOR MEETS US COUNTERPART

http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2005/03/04/200503040034.asp
2. MEMORANDUM BY THE DPRK FOREIGN MINISTRY
    http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm
*************************************************

1. CHINESE CHIEF NEGOTIATOR MEETS US COUNTERPART
    by Choi Soung-ah, Korea Herald, 4 March 2005

Chinese chief negotiator Wu Dawei had separate meetings in Seoul yesterday
with US counterpart Christopher Hill and Unification Minister Chung
Dong-young, in an intensified diplomatic drive to get North Korea back to
the negotiating table to end its nuclear standoff. Wu conveyed to Hill a
common assessment by Seoul and Beijing of North Korean demands for returning
to the six-way disarmament talks, diplomatic sources said.
Wu called at the US Embassy at 9 a.m. to see Hill, now ambassador in Seoul
and newly-named as Washington's top negotiator to the six-party talks on the
North Korean nuclear issue. As head delegates of their respective nations,
Wu and Hill shared their views on the six-party process, and "had a good
meeting and a constructive exchange of views," according to Maureen Cormack,
a press officer at the US Embassy.
"The two officials discussed ways to get the six-party talks going again,
and focused on ways to move forward. Both sides expressed a desire to get
the talks moving. Both parties agreed that the Korean peninsula must be
denuclearized, and that the six-party talks are the best way to achieve this
goal. They agreed that the six-party talks should resume as soon as
possible."
Hill told a meeting of the Asian Leadership Conference later that the United
States has "no intention to invade North Korea" and called on the communist
state to return to the six-party talks. Former US Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger told the same conference he sees the talks resuming soon "because
there are no alternatives" to resolving the nuclear tensions on the
peninsula.
Chinese envoy Wu also met Unification Minister Chung, who doubles as head of
the National Security Council here, followed by a meeting with NSC deputy
head Lee Jong-seok, to brief them on Beijing's position.
"The two sides shared an understanding on North Korea's concerns with
returning to the negotiating table," according to a senior Unification
Ministry official.
During the hour-long talks, Chung expressed hopes that "China's efforts will
foster a new atmosphere and constructive efforts by all participating
nations will restart the six-party talks in near time," according to the
official. Chung and Wu also reiterated the need for Seoul and Beijing to
maintain close-knitted cooperation for a peaceful settlement of the nuclear
issue, the official said.
Wu's discussions with top officials came after overnight Pyongyang
statements demanding a US apology and threatening to resume missile tests,
as well as saying it will return to the six-way talks if Washington
"rebuilds the groundwork" and does not attempt a regime change in the
Stalinist state.
On Wednesday, the Chinese envoy Wu met Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon, Vice
Foreign Minister Lee Tae-sik, and Seoul's head delegate to the six-party
framework, Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon. The two sides agreed to
avoid characterizing North Korea's demands for a "better atmosphere" as a
precondition to return to the talks. Wu arrived in Seoul early Wednesday for
a three-day visit as part of a flurry of diplomacy to urge North Korea back
to the discussion table.
Song will fly to Moscow next week and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
is scheduled to visit Seoul late this month. Last weekend, Song and his US
and Japanese counterparts met in Seoul to discuss Pyongyang's latest demand.
Details to their meeting have not been disclosed but they said afterwards
they are ready to discuss whatever concerns North Korea may have once it
returns to the negotiating table.
North Korea demanded on Wednesday that the United States apologize for
designating the Stalinist communist state as an "outpost of tyranny" and
threatened to resume long-range missile tests. But it also held out the
possibility of returning to the six-way nuclear disarmament talks if
Washington agrees to coexist with the communist country. In its latest
outburst, the North cited US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent
designation of the communist nation as one of the world's "outposts of
tyranny" as evidence that Washington has not abandoned its "hostile" policy.
"The US should apologize for his above-said remarks and withdraw them,
renounce its hostile policy aimed at a regime change in the DPRK and clarify
its political willingness to coexist with the DPRK in peace and show it in
practice," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a memorandum. The
statement attributed both "axis of evil" and "outpost of tyranny" remarks to
Bush. The memorandum - the gist was carried in an English-language dispatch
by the North's official news agency KCNA - said North Korea "will go to the
talks any time if the US takes a trustworthy sincere attitude and moves to
provide conditions and justification for the resumption of the six-party
talks."
The original Korean-language statement also said that North Korea no longer
felt bound by its 1999 moratorium on missile tests, according to South
Korea's Yonhap news agency. North Korea announced a missile tests moratorium
in September 1999 while it was negotiating terms of missile
non-proliferation with the administration of then-US President Bill Clinton.
"Dialogue between the United States and North Korea has been completely
blocked since Bush took office in 2001," Yonhap quoted the memorandum as
saying. "As a result, we see no binding force on the missile moratorium."
The North's vigorous missile development has unsettled its neighbours. The
US military in South Korea has begun deploying new Patriot missiles designed
to intercept incoming missiles, while Japan has become the first country to
agree to work with Washington on its missile defense project. In 2003, Japan
launched its first spy satellites in a multibillion-dollar program aimed at
monitoring North Korea's development of long-range missiles. North Korea
shocked the region in 1998 by test-firing a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan
and into the Pacific Ocean. The North said it was an attempt to put a
satellite in orbit.
Taepodong-1 has a 2,500-kilometer range, South Korean officials say. North
Korea reportedly is conducting engine tests for its Taepodong-2 model that
would be capable of reaching the western United States.
"Japan has no right to participate in six-party talks since it is a complete
pawn to the Americans," the memorandum was quoted as saying. It criticized
moves by some Japanese politicians to impose economic sanctions against the
North.
At a meeting in Vienna of the International Atomic Energy Agency board, the
United States urged North Korea to commit to a "verifiable and irreversible
end" to its nuclear program and return to the six-party talks.
Jackie Sanders, chief US delegate to the board of governors, said North
Korea "needs to make a strategic choice to step off the dangerous path it
has set for itself." The board sought agreement on a statement urging
Pyongyang to return to negotiations and to end nuclear threats.
*************************************************

2. MEMORANDUM BY THE DPRK FOREIGN MINISTRY
    Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), 2 March 2005

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 US 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 US line continue making a series of undesirable
assertions that the DPRK too strongly reacted to the US 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 US 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 US
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 US for the six-party talks or bilateral talks.
The basic key to the solution of the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the
US is for the US to make a switchover from its hostile policy towards 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 towards 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 20
January, Bush declared that it is the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the
world. He blustered that the US 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 2
February 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 US will force North Korea to abandon its nuclear
ambition.
US State Secretary Rice made it clear in which countries tyranny should be
terminated as claimed by Bush at the US Senate confirmation hearing on 18
January 2005, two days before his inaugural address. Branding the DPRK
together with Cuba, Iran, Belarus and some other countries strongly
advocating independence against the US as "outposts of tyranny", Rice
asserted that the US 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 US
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 US on 6 November
2003, during his first-term office, Bush clearly defined the DPRK as an
"outpost of tyranny", asserting that the US 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 US not to co-exist with the DPRK
under any circumstances but seek to bring down its system by disarming it.
This remains unchanged. US official figures have not expressed any intention
to co-exist with the DPRK or make a switchover in its hostile policy towards
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 US allies are cursing and ridiculing
American style "liberty and democracy", saying where is tyranny touted by
the US, it is designating a series of anti-American countries which are out
of favour 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 US 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 US
pre-emptive 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 US given that it has
rejected the government of the DPRK? The wrongdoings committed by the US
have deprived it of any justification to sit with the DPRK. The DPRK and the
US 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 pre-emptive nuclear attack on it. In
order to cope with the US policy to stifle it with nukes, the DPRK pulled
out of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) on 10 January 2003 and
legitimately made nukes, not bound to the international treaty. Whenever it
took a step for self-defence to cope with the US 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 US 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 US administration, we announced the moratorium on the missile
launch while dialogue was under way but the DPRK-US 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 US hostile policy towards the DPRK compels it to
bolster its self-defensive nuclear arsenal. Not only the public in the US
but the world public are becoming increasingly critical of the Bush
administration, asserting that its remarks about "tyranny" and hostile
policy towards the DPRK resulted in rendering the six-party talks abortive.
Senator Kerry, who ran for presidency on the democratic ticket during the
2004 US presidential election, when interviewed by the New York Times on 12
September 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 US Institute for
International Policy Studies, in an article dated 22 February 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 11 February 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 US 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 US 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 towards the DPRK.
The Washington post in an editorial dated 22 February 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 US to make a switchover in its hostile policy towards the
DPRK. The nuclear issue can never be settled unless the US 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-US relations for the last four years since the Bush
administration took office. The US 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 US 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 US 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 US should make a switchover in its hostile policy
towards the DPRK. Such agreement and common understanding are the basis for
advancing the talks.
The US 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 24 June 2004, US Assistant Secretary of State Kelly said
that the US 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 (Association of
Southeast Asian Nations) regional forum held in Jakarta on 2 July 2004, said
that the US 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 US 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 US side to the talks, said at a US Senate hearing on 15 July 2004, that
the "landmark proposal" made by the US 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 programmes first. Even if the nuclear
programme 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 US assertion that the DPRK dismantle its
nuclear programme 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 US has no intention to negotiate with North
Koreans, there can be no reward for North Korea and the US will not bring
any benefit to it.
On 21 July a week after that statement of Kelly, Bolton, US under-secretary
of state, said in Seoul that the US 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 programme is met. On 23 July he
told reporters in Tokyo that North Korea should abandon its nuclear
programme as Libya did.
The US secretary of state, too, said at press conferences that the US wants
Pyongyang to follow in the footsteps of Libya, demanding it dismantle its
nuclear programme first. Armitage, deputy secretary of state, asserted that
if the US took any positive gesture towards North Korea, though symbolic, it
would mean making a reward for the bad behaviour or sending a wrong message
to North Korea.
In fact, such contradictory behaviours of the US 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 programme first on the
basis of CVID (complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement) on 22
February 2005, a spokesman for the US 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.
US Secretary of State Rice told reporters on 3 February that all parties to
the six-way talks will have to persuade North Koreans to choose a strategic
option for abandoning its nuclear programme by accepting CVID. On the same
day, a spokesman for the US Department of State said that the proposal made
by the US 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 programme 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 US, too, and especially
of the US promise to renounce its hostile policy. That was why on 24 July
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 US side at the DPRK-US contact in
New York on 11 August 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 21 July 2004, less than one
month after the third round of the talks, US 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, US congress is to allot 24m US 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 21 October 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 US decision to allocate 24m US 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.
Georges 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 15 February 2005: the study of the Korean issue shows
that the sovereignty of the DPRK has been consistently violated. US Congress
passed a bill calling for spending 24m dollars in a bid to destabilize the
Pyongyang government.
At the working meeting of PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative) member
nations held in Norway early in August 2004 when preparations were made for
the fourth round of the six-way talks, the US decided to stage naval
blockade exercises in the waters off Japan between 26 and 27 October. And it
did not hide the fact that the exercises were targeted against the DPRK. The
US secretary of state flew into Tokyo on 23 October, 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 behaviour.
On the day the exercises were kicked off, Undersecretary 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 US military threat was not confined to this. On 29 June 2004, right
after the third round of the six-way talks, the US Department of Defence
announced a plan to deploy three squadrons of F-117 stealth fighter-bombers
of the US 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 pre-emptive
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 US
announced a "combat power build-up programme", which calls for investing
11bn US dollars in South Korea, in May 2003 and increased the investment up
to 13bn 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 US declared it would supply new type
missiles capable of penetrating underground facilities in the DPRK to the US
forces in South Korea on a priority basis. The 12 July 2004 issue of the US
weekly Defence News, commenting on this, disclosed that the US 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 US has faked up the story about the
"transfer of nuclear substance", chilling the atmosphere of dialogue. The US
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 US 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 sceptical, 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 US as
seen above, the US 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 US to calculate that the DPRK will come out to the talks and yield to it
under its military pressure. All these moves of the US are a clear
manifestation of its hostile policy towards the DPRK.
The DPRK's demand that the US 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 US 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 US has not
been interested in settling the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US
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 US
administration, in his interview with Kyodo on 18 June 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 US Institute for International Policy Studies, in its
article on 22 February 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 US 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 programme" of the DPRK. As far as the "uranium enrichment
programme" is concerned, the DPRK has no such programme.
The US 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 US 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 US 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 US would force the DPRK to disarm
itself during his election campaign in Wisconsin on 18 August 2004, and on
other occasions. It is not hard to guess what the US 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 23 August 2004, and on other occasions that the US should not
dream of forcing it to lay down its arms. The US 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 US policy. By nature,
Japan has no qualification to participate in the six-party talks as it is a
faithful servant for the US 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 US
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
towards 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 US will have
to pay dear prices for them.
*************************************************

End CanKor # 199

*************************************************
CanKor is an electronic information service for readers interested in the
issues of peace and security on the Korean peninsula, published by
Weingartner Consulting. Financial support is received from the Canadian
International Development Agency (CIDA). Views expressed on the CanKor
website or weekly digest are those of the respective authors, and do not
necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of CanKor, CIDA or
Weingartner Consulting. CanKor accepts no liability for inaccuracies, errors
or omissions.  Copyright of all items listed or reprinted rests with the
original publishers.  CanKor provides links to originals when available. To
subscribe or unsubscribe, and for all other communication, please address
the CanKor editorial team by e-mail at editor at CanKor.ca. Editor: Erich
Weingartner; Managing Editor: Miranda Weingartner; Research: Marion Current,
Liam Roberts, Ilene Solomon; Web developer: David Seguin. Please visit our
website at: www.CanKor.ca
*************************************************