Memorandum of DPRK Foreign Ministry

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

Group for Study of Songun Policy Inaugurated in India

     Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- An inaugural ceremony of the Indian group for the study of the Songun policy was held in New Delhi on Feb. 15. Harish Gupta, secretary general of the Asian Regional Institute of the Juche Idea, said hat leader Kim Jong Il has enforced the Songun policy, turning the DPRK into an invulnerable socialist fortress despite the imperialists' moves to isolate and stifle it.
    He continued:
    The Songun policy serves as a powerful weapon for accomplishing the human cause of independence and Korean socialism will win victory after victory under his Songun revolutionary leadership in the future, too.
    We will deeply study the unique Songun policy of Kim Jong Il attracting the keen interest of the international community and conduct positive activities to explain and introduce it.
    At the ceremony Dr. Sadhna Harish, who is principal of Vivey Kananda College of University of Delhi, was elected chairman of the group.
    A congratulatory message to Kim Jong Il was adopted at the ceremony.

Japan's Move to Infringe upon National Sovereignty Denounced

     Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- The south Korean Federation of University Student Councils on Feb. 27 reportedly made public a statement titled "we strongly denounce Japan for seeking to invade the Korean Peninsula, talking about the issue of Tok Islet." The statement referred to the fact that the Japanese ambassador to south Korea talked nonsense that Tok Islet belongs to Japan at a time when the Shimane Prefectural Assembly of Japan made desperate efforts to institute every Feb. 22 as "Day of Takeshima (Tok Islet).
    Japan's act of persistently seeking to grab the islet like a hungry dog, instead of reflecting on its past wrongs, glaringly reveals its moves to revive militarism, its imperialist nature and wild ambition for supremacy, the statement noted, and continued:
    It is clear that the islet is part of the inviolable territory of our nation, a fact proved historically, geographically and legally and recognized by Japan, too.
    Japan's act is an encroachment upon our nation's sovereignty and nothing but reinvasion of the Korean Peninsula as it only stopped short of bringing war means to the islet.
    Japan should halt infringing upon the sovereignty of the Korean nation any longer, discontinue acts of aggression against the peninsula at once and kneel down before the Koreans and ask for their forgiveness.

Setting "Day of Tok Islet" Demanded in S. Korea

     Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- The Headquarters of the National Movement to Protect Tok Islet consisting of 16 civic and social organizations in the area of Pusan, south Korea, held a meeting on Feb. 26 to vow to protect Tok Islet at which it requested the authorities to immediately set the "Day of Tok Islet" to cope with Japan's move, according to south Korean KBS. Strongly condemning the Shimane Prefectural Assembly of Japan for working hard to fix Feb. 22 as the "Day of Takeshima" when the then prefectural assembly unilaterally declared Tok Islet as part of the prefecture 100 years back, the organization requested the government to institute October 25, the day the Royal Decree No. 41, the decree whereby it was put under the local control of Ullung Island, was promulgated in 1900 as the "Day of Tok Islet" as a counter-measure against Japan's act.
    The government should present the Royal Decree to the international court to let it know well that Tok Islet is part of the Korean territory in name and reality and all the people should unite to foil Japan's wild ambition for territorial expansion, it urged.

Immediate Scrapping of Provocative "Emergency Plans" Urged

     Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- The "emergency planning chairman" of south Korea at the National Assembly shortly ago let loose the awfully provocative remarks that "it is under discussion to include in the Chungmu plan, the south Korea-U.S. joint operation plan, etc. clauses on coping with a nuclear situation" as "they were worked out to confront a contingency in the north on the premise of a non-nuclear situation". The Secretariat of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland Wednesday published its information bulletin No. 897, which says his remarks turned a revealing light on the fact that the south Korean authorities have not scrapped but are keeping the "emergency plans to cope with a sudden change of the situation" which are full of malice against the north and, furthermore, are promoting the sinister scheme to renew them, taking issue with the north's possession of nuclear weapons, a shield for national defense and treasured sword of justice.
    This is an intolerable challenge to the desire of Koreans to achieve the peace and reunification of the country with cooperation for national independence and cooperation for peace against war and an unpardonable hostile act toward the north, the same nation and dialogue partner. The information bulletin said, and went on: The reality proves once again that the south Korean authorities' fond talk about "respect for the June 15 joint declaration", "peace and co-prosperity" and "radical development of inter-Korean relations" are nothing but a buffoonery to mislead home and foreign public opinion and conceal their ugly colors and they are still watching for a chance with a dagger in the bosom.
    The south Korean authorities should stop acting rashly and abandon the extremely provocative "emergency plans" at once, pondering over the grave consequences to be entailed by their anti-north confrontation moves, instead of dreaming an impracticable dream with outcries over "contingency in the north" and "nuclear situation".

Respect for Sovereignty Essential for World Peace Order

     Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- The basic condition for the establishment of a world peace order is respect for the sovereignty of the countries and nations. Respect for sovereignty is the foundation of peace and stability and fundamental guarantee of harmony and unity among countries and peoples. Rodong Sinmun says this in a signed article Thursday.
    It goes on:
    What is most important in respecting sovereignty is noninterference in others' internal affairs.
    Each country and people work out lines and policies suited to their specific realities and conditions and strive to carry them out. It is no more than an undisguised infringement upon the sovereignty of other countries to ignore this and try to force them to accept one's own policy, insisting that it is the best. If this is fostered and allowed, antagonism and confrontation will crop up between countries and develop into disputes and military conflicts in the long run.
    Differences and disputes between countries must be settled through dialogue and negotiation and imperialists' military intervention and aggression on sovereign countries must not be permitted in any case. Such actions are the worst violation of sovereignty.
    The imperialists threaten and blackmail the countries standing in the way of the attainment of their dominationist purpose, attaching to them the labels of "danger", "factor of instability" and "terrorism" and, in the end, mercilessly crush them by use of force. Not a few countries, however, are taking irresolute stance toward the imperialists' aggression and war moves, failing to take a principled stand. Some countries dare not utter a proper word, cowed by the threat and blackmail of the imperialist aggression forces and avert the eyes from their invasion of other countries, feeling relief at their not being its victim. There are even countries sympathetic to it.
    Craftily taking advantage of this, the imperialist aggression forces wield sticks at the countries tough in their anti-U.S. independent stand while pursuing "smiling diplomacy" toward other countries to win over them and expand their sphere of influence.
    What the imperialists want is the whole world. Even though a country is left outside their direct aggression today, it may find itself its target tomorrow and shed blood.
    All the countries should launch a collective counterattack on the aggression and war moves of the imperialists and force them not to act rashly.

Tree-planting Day Marked in DPRK

     Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- Spring tree planting started this significant year. Meetings of working people of different strata and school youth and children were held in the provinces, cities and counties on March 2, the tree-planting day, to plant trees on an extensive scale and thus cover the whole land with forests and gardens, true to the land upbuilding plan of the Workers' Party of Korea.
    Present at the meetings of working people's organizations were Kim Yong Nam, Choe Thae Bok, Yang Hyong Sop, Kim Kuk Thae, Kim Jung Rin, Kim Ki Nam, Jong Ha Chol, Choe Yong Rim and Kwak Pom Gi, senior officials of the Party and state, and Kim Yong Dae, chairman of the Central Committee of the Korean Social Democratic Party, Jang Il Son, minister of Land and Environment Preservation, Choe Jong Gon, minister of City Management, and officials concerned, working people, and school youth and children.
    Reports were made by leading officials of working people's organizations to be followed by speeches at the meetings held at the Arboretum of the Kumsusan Memorial Palace, Namri Village of the Mangyongdae Farm, the plaza of the Monument to Party Founding and the construction site of the Taean Friendship Glass Factory.
    Reporters and speakers said the plan for the building of a new country spread by President Kim Il Sung and the torch of afforestation raised by him when he climbed the Moran Hill, accompanied by leader Kim Jong Il and anti-Japanese war hero Kim Jong Suk 59 years ago were a solemn prelude to the building of the present-day country of scenic beauty overgrown with thick forests.
    They noted that a great advance has been made in recent years in implementing the Party's policy of covering the whole land with forests and gardens thanks to the noble patriotism and energetic leadership of Kim Jong Il.
    They called on all the officials and working people to exert energetic efforts to plant trees of good species in towns and villages and at factories and work sites and register big successes in tree planting this significant year.
    At the end of the meetings the participants planted a wide variety of trees with all sincerity.
    At the meeting of soldiers of the Ministry of the People's Armed Forces held in the arboretum of the Kumsusan Memorial Palace on the same day speakers urged all the officers and men of the People's Army to turn out as one in tree planting, saying it is an honorable task of the People's Army, the main driving force of the revolution and shock force in the building of a great prosperous powerful nation, to take the lead in realizing the far-reaching landing upbuilding plan of the Supreme Commander.
    After the meeting, KPA Marshal Ri Ul Sol and Vice Marshals Kim Ik Hyon, Ri Jong San, Ri Ha Il, Pak Ki So and Jon Jae Son and senior officers of the Ministry of the People's Armed Forces and servicepersons planted above 3,600 trees of 10 odd species in the arboretum.
    Meanwhile, a lot of trees were planted in various areas by units of the KPA three services and military academies of all levels on the tree-planting day.

Greetings to Bulgarian President

     Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the DPRK Supreme People's Assembly, today sent a message of greetings to President Georgi Parvanov on the Bulgarian national day. Extending heartfelt felicitations to him, his government and people, the message expressed the belief that the long-standing friendly relations between the two countries would continue to develop favorably in conformity with the desire of the two peoples.

Greetings to Bulgarian Prime Minister

     Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- Premier of the DPRK Cabinet Pak Pong Ju sent a message of greetings to his Bulgarian counterpart Simeon Saxcoburgotski on the occasion of the national day of Bulgaria. The message wished him great success in his responsible work for the economic development and prosperity of the country.
    Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun also sent a message of greetings to his Bulgarian counterpart Solomon Passi.
    Hoping that the efforts of Bulgaria for entering the EU in 2007 would be crowned with success, the message expressed the belief that the bilateral relations would develop on better terms.

Korean Folk Dictionary Published

     Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- Korean Folk Dictionary has been published by the Science and Encyclopedia Press of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It arranges in Korean alphabetical order some 1,820 lemmas including national dresses and attiring custom, national food and dietary custom, national houses and dwelling custom, ceremonies of coming of age, marriage, funeral and ancestral worship and family custom, folk holidays and amusements, folk music and dance, working life, folk crafts, folklore and religious custom.
    It was compiled jointly by competent professors and doctors. Each lemma gives its historical origin, change, development and inheritance, supported by its historical records, relics and data.
    The lemmas difficult to comprehend are illustrated by photos or pictures.
    The dictionary gives people a comprehensive knowledge of the beautiful manners and customs the Korean people have created, living a harmonious life in the same territory as the same nation for 5,000 years.

New Tile Adhesive Developed

     Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- A new kind of tile adhesive has been developed by the Building-materials Institute under the Paekdusan Institute of Architecture of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It is an inorganic-organic adhesive which is made in combination of inorganic fixing agent with water soluble plastic and other additives.
    Ri Tok Ho, chief of the Building-materials Institute, told KCNA that its quality is more than twenty percent higher than other adhesives on all the quality indices.
    The time of its adhesive power nearly doubles that of others and its initial and final fixing intensity is incomparably high.
    It makes it possible to raise working rate by far, improve fixing quality and extend serviceable life of tiles while saving a great deal of manpower and materials and keeping tiles clean.
    It can be applied to all kinds of tiles including mosaic and its production cost is very low.

New Biological Agricultural Medicine Developed in DPRK

     Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- Scientists of the Koryo Biological Medicine Center of the Branch Academy of Biology under the Academy of Sciences of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea have developed a new Koryo biological agricultural medicine. "Myongrok"-branded natural organic medicine is made in proper combination of extracts from some medicinal herbs with nourishing and activating materials and additives by the method of manufacturing traditional Koryo medicines.
    It kills harmful insects of rice and other crops, fruit trees and vegetables including rice stem borer, defoliator, Leucania selarata, Aphididae and caterpillar.
    Even though it is diluted to the point that it is unable to kill harmful insects directly, it can reduce their appetite more than a half to repress their growth.
    It is hard for the insects to be immune from Myongrok. It, with a long period of medicinal value, gives no harmful effect to human body, fish, livestock and crops.
    If seed is treated with Myongrok, it promotes sprouting and root growth, activates photosynthesis and thus shortens the period of crop growth. The medicine also makes crops and vegetables resist unfavorable weather conditions.
    According to Yu Son Ok, a section chief of the center and one of the developers, last year Myongrok was applied to more than 30,000 hectares of rice fields of many co-op farms including those in Hwangju County, North Hwanghae Province. It remarkably reduced damage from harmful insects and raised the grain output.

Kim Yong Nam Receives Credentials from Danish Ambassador

     Pyongyang, March 3 (KCNA) -- Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the DPRK Supreme People's Assembly, received credentials from Danish Ambassador to the DPRK Laurids Mikaelsen at the Mansudae Assembly Hall Thursday. On hand was Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Kung Sok Ung.
    After receiving the credentials, the president conversed with the ambassador.

SPA Session to Be Postponed

     Pyongyang, March 4 (KCNA) -- The Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK Thursday announced a decision on postponing the third session of the 11th SPA. According to it, the Presidium of the DPRK SPA will postpone the session originally slated for March 9, Juche 94 (2005), at the requests made by deputies to the SPA in all domains of the socialist construction.
    The date of the session will be set and announced publicly.

For Spanish-speaking people

Retornaremos a cita a 6 bandas cuando se den condiciones propicias -Memorandum del MINREX-

     Pyongyang, 3 de marzo (ATCC) -- El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la Republica Popular Democratica de Corea dio a la publicidad el dia 2 un memorandum que aclara el porque de nuestra insistencia en retornar a la mesa de la cita a 6 bandas cuando se den la justificacion y las condiciones propicias para ello. Abajo ofrecemos el resumen del memorandum:
    La RPDC no tiene ninguna justificacion de dialogar con EE.UU. tanto en la cita a 6 bandas como en las conversaciones bilaterales.
    El problema nuclear entre ambos paises es un producto de la politica extremadamente hostil de la administracion Bush, por lo tanto la clave de su solucion radica en que esta cambie su actual politica hostil por la de coexistencia pacifica con la RPDC.
    Al igual que en el primer mandato, en el Segundo periodo tambien la administracion Bush concreto en una "politica" su intencion de no coexistir con la RPDC y de "derrocar" el sistema optado por el mismo pueblo coreano. De esta forma, nos privo de la justificacion de seguir participando en las conversaciones a 6 partes.
    Aunque la administracion Bush dice que no tiene la voluntad de hostilizar y agredir a la RPDC, en realidad, recurre obstinadamente a su politica de doble rasero, o sea, con el garrote en una mano y la zanahoria en la otra, para cumplir su "meta final" de "derrocar el regimen" de esta.
    Todo esto quedo evidenciado en el proceso de definicion de la politica de la administracion Bush para su segunda estancia en la Casa Blanca.
    Nunca se altero la verdadera y arraigada intencion de EE.UU. de no convivir pacificamente con la RPDC y perseguir hasta el final el "derrocamiento del sistema" de esta mediante el "desarme".
    En efecto, durante el pasado cuatrienio del primer mandato de Bush hemos dado maximas pruebas de nuestra paciencia y magnanimidad.
    Sin embargo, partiendo de su acostumbrada negativa a la convivencia con la RPDC por la diferencia de ideales, EE.UU. desprecio irracionalmente a nuestro pais, que es contraparte del dialogo, y practico siempre la politica hostil a este.
    En lugar de revocar su pronunciamiento sobre el "eje del mal", Bush fue mas lejos al definir al gobierno electo por el propio pueblo coreano como la "vanguardia de la tirania" y el "blanco a ser eliminado hasta el fin".
    ?Sera posible entonces que nuestro pais, cuya soberania fue denegada por EE.UU., pueda conversar con este?
    El propio EE.UU. perdio automaticamente la justificacion de conversar con la RPDC por sus crimenes cometidos contra esta.
    Actualmente la RPDC se halla en las relaciones beligerantes y tecnicamente, en el estado de Guerra con EE.UU.
    Por lo tanto, es del todo justo que hemos fabricado y fabricamos las armas nucleares para defendernos del intento politico de la administracion Bush de asestar un golpe preventivo a nuestro pais con este tipo de armamentos.
    Para defendernos de la politica norteamericana de aplastamiento a la RPDC con las armas nucleares, nos retiramos el 10 de enero de 2003 con fines de autodefensa del Tratado de No Proliferacion de Armas Nucleares y fabricamos con todo derecho las armas nucleares al margen de este protocolo internacional.
    Cada vez que teniamos que adoptar medidas de autodefensa frente a la recrudescente politica de aislamiento y aplastamiento de EE.UU., las dimos a conocer a todo el mundo, inclusive a la parte norteamericana, y preparamos con transparencia nuestra fuerza nuclear para detener la guerra.
    En el tema de misiles, no estamos atados a ningun tratado o ninguna ley internacionales.
    Durante el mandato de la anterior administracion norteamericana, especificamente en septiembre de 1999, publicamos la medida del "cese provisional del lanzamiento de misiles en el lapso de conversaciones". Sin embargo, con la aparicion en 2001 de la administracion Bush, las conversaciones RPDC-EE.UU. fueron interrumpidas completamente.
    Por lo tanto, en la actualidad, no recibimos restriccion en la reservacion del lanzamiento de misiles.
    Como es conocido por todos, la misma politica hostil norteamericana nos obliga a agrandar el arsenal nuclear con fines de autodefensa.
    Hasta la fecha, EE.UU. dice reiteradamente que "no hostigamos a la RPDC" "ni abrigamos intencion de agredirla" y con estas palabras hueras finge no aplicar la politica hostil a esta.
    Entonces, le preguntamos ?que palabras suenan mas hostiles que la etiqueta de la "vanguardia de la tirania" puesta al regimen optado por el mismo pueblo coreano y la decision de "eliminarlo hasta el fin"?
    La frase de "no tener la intencion de agredir" solo la puede pronunciar el muy fresco EE.UU. que no vacila ni un comino en derrocar gobiernos de otros paises e invadirlos, por lo cual este descarado carraspeo nunca puede significar la renuncia a su politica hostil a nuestro pais.
    El problema nuclear nunca sera resuelto al margen de la voluntad de EE.UU. de cambiar su actual politica con respecto a la RPDC y de convivir con esta.
    Reiteramos que durante el primer mandato de Bush, hemos mostrado al maximo nuestra paciencia y magnanimidad para solucionar el problema nuclear y mejorar las relaciones bilaterales. EE.UU. debe pedir disculpa por su pronunciamiento sobre el "acabamiento con la tirania" y revocarlo, patentizar su voluntad politica de renunciar su politica hostil encaminada a "derrocar el sistema" de la RPDC para pasar a la coexistencia pacifica con esta y mostrarla con hechos. Solo cuando se den de esta manera la justificacion y las condiciones propicias al reinicio de las conversaciones a 6 bandas, podremos dialogar con aquel pais.
    Seria una tonteria retornar a la mesa del dialogo por el llamado del Estado que se niega totalmente y quiere "derrumbar" a nuestro pais.
    Por lo tanto, EE.UU. debe reconstruir la base de la cita a 6 bandas y preparar las condiciones y el clima favorables a la reanudacion de esta.
    Gracias a los esfuerzos sinceros y pacientes de nuestro pais por desnuclearizar la Peninsula Coreana, en la tercera ronda, sesionada en junio de 2004, quedaron acordados los principios de la "palabra vs. palabra" y la "accion vs. accion" y el otro de "congelamiento vs. compensacion" que es el primer paso hacia la solucion del problema nuclear.
    Ademas, se logro en esta ocasion una comprension comun de que EE.UU. debe cambiar su politica hostil a la RPDC.
    Tal consenso y la compresion comun devienen la base de la marcha exitosa de la cita seis-partita.
    Por la presion de la opinion publica nacional e internacional, en dicha ronda hasta la delegacion norteamericana se vio obligada a ponerse de acuerdo con esos principios y comprometerse, aunque verbalmente, a "no hostilizar" a la RPDC.
    Sin embargo, a menos de un mes despues, EE.UU. traiciono todos estos logros deshaciendo por completo la base del dialogo.
    En su segundo mandato, la administracion Bush aboga atrevidamente por la "reanudacion incondicional de las conversaciones a 6 bandas" desoyendo nuestra demanda de reconstruir la base del dialogo destruida durante su primer mandato.
    Ademas, se mantiene en su insistencia en que la RPDC sea "primera en renunciar la fuerza nuclear" mediante el "desmantelamiento nuclear completo, verificable e irreversible" (CVID por sus siglas en ingles) y no muestra ningun gesto benevolo y confiable para crear las condiciones propicias para el dialogo.
    En la tercera ronda de conversaciones a 6 bandas, la administracion Bush tampoco olvido articular la frase de "no hostilizar" a nuestro pais. Pero, tan pronto como se retirara de la mesa del dialogo, dio mas giros a la tuerca de sus actos hostiles dirigidos a derrocar el regimen de la RPDC.
    El 21 de julio de 2004, -a menos de un mes posterior a la tercera ronda de conversaciones a seis bandas- el congreso estadounidense aprobo la "ley de DDHH del Norte de Corea" a fin de asegurar en lo financiero y lo material el "derrocamiento del sistema" de la RPDC.
    En la reunion de trabajo de los paises miembros de la "Iniciativa de seguridad contra la proliferacion" (PSI) efectuada en Noruega a principios de agosto de 2004 cuando se desarrollaban los preparativos de la cuarta ronda, Estados Unidos obligo a tomar la decision de realizar los dias 26 y 27 de octubre en el mar frente a Japon un ejercicio de bloqueo maritimo.
    Entonces no oculto que la flecha del citado ejercicio se dirigia a la RPDC.
    El 29 de junio de 2004 a raiz del termino de la tercera ronda de conversaciones a seis bandas, el Departamento de Defensa estadounidense dio a la publicidad que dentro de tres meses ubicaria en el Sur de Corea tres batallones de caza-bombarderos Stealth "F-117" de sus fuerzas aereas y comenzo a ejecutarlo.
    Y publico oficialmente la decision de colocar permanentemente en el mar Este de Corea dos destructores "Aegis" dotados del sistema de misiles de punta y los emplazo practicamente.
    La administracion Bush que incluyo a la RPDC en la "lista de blancos de ataque preventivo nuclear", al entrar en el ano 2004 publico la elaboracion del "nuevo plan operacional 5026" y el "plan operacional 5027-04", mientras dio acicate al emplazamiento de las enormes fuerzas armadas en el Sur de Corea.
    En mayo de 2003 anuncio el "plan de aumento de armamento" que preve la inversion de 11 mil millones de US$ en el Sur de Corea y, a mediados de 2004, so pretexto de la "reubicacion de las fuerzas armadas", aumento la suma de inversion a 13 mil millones de US$ para introducir en gran medida los equipos belicos ultramodernos.
    De mal en peor, Estados Unidos publico que suministraria ante todo a sus tropas ocupantes del Sur de Corea los misiles de perforacion subterranean de nuevo tipo para destruir las instalaciones subterraneas de la RPDC.
    La administracion Bush siguio soltando blasfemia contra la contraparte del dialogo y acusando por todos los medios a la RPDC para extender la intriga psicologica contra esta.
    Elaboro y publico cada ano un informe hablando como de talisman del "contrabando de drogas", "trafico de seres humanos" y "represion religiosa" de la RPDC. E incluso fraguo hasta el "rumor de transferencia de sustancia nuclear" para enrarecer el clima de dialogo.
    Difundio mas de una vez los datos falsificados de que la RPDC vendio ilicitamente a Iran uranio hexafluorado y gas fluorado, intenta entregarle el motor especial para el reactor nuclear y entrego a Libia por conducto de Pakistan la sustancia nuclear.
    Todo esto no es nada mas que entenebrecer la imagen de la RPDC y crear el ambiente de opresion internacional sobre esta acusandola de "proliferador nuclear".
    La RPDC no hizo transaccion alguna en el sector nuclear tanto con Iran como Libia. Asi Estados Unidos sigue intensificando la presion politica y diplomatica y la amenaza militar contra la RPDC y demanda descaradamente a esta "salir pronto a la mesa de las conversaciones a seis bandas porque estan maduradas las condiciones".
    Esto hace recordar de la "diplomacia de canonero" de que se valian los paises grandes en los siglos 18-19 para ocupar a los paises pequenos.
    Es ridiculo pensar que vencida por tal presion militar la RPDC saldra al lugar de conversaciones.
    No es un "requisito previo" la demanda de la RPDC de que EE.UU. abandone su politica de hostilidad a esta y reconstruya la base de conversaciones.
    La administracion Bush no tomo ninguna medida de accion para restaurar la base de la tercera ronda de conversaciones a seis bandas. Y asi, ?se puede creer que hayan sido preparadas espontaneamente las condiciones de la cita con el paso de tiempo?
    Que ridicula es la insistencia de Estados Unidos segun la cual estan maduradas las condiciones de conversaciones hoy en que el imperio niega totalmente la idea y el sistema, la libertad y la democracia optados por nuestro pueblo y perpetra mas abiertamente los actos hostiles dirigidos al "derrocamiento del sistema" de la RPDC. Todos los hechos prueban que desde el principio, Estados Unidos no tiene interes en la solucion del problema nuclear con la RPDC a traves de las conversaciones a seis bandas sino persigue el objetivo de ganar el tiempo continuando las conversaciones infructuosas para preparar de esta manera las condiciones para ejercer la opresion, el aislamiento y el bloqueo por etapas contra la RPDC.
    El que Estados Unidos pregone la solucion pacifica y negociada del problema nuclear y la reanudacion de conversaciones sin dar prueba de sus esfuerzos sinceros por restaurar la base de ellas no pasa de ser una farsa para eludir su responsabilidad.
    Si Estados Unidos desea de veras la solucion negociada del problema nuclear, debe reconstruir la base de conversaciones destruida unilateralmente por si mismo, renunciar con la accion practica su politica de hostilidad enderezada al "derrocamiento del sistema" de la RPDC y tomar el camino de la coexistencia con esta.
    La demanda de la RPDC es que Estados Unidos cambie su politica.
    El que la administracion Bush, sin expresar la voluntad de cambiar de su politica, demande sin ton ni son a la RPDC salir a la mesa de las conversaciones es una artimana para colocar a esta en el "banco del acusado", imponerle el "desarme nuclear" y a la larga aplastarla militarmente.
    Bush hablo abiertamente del "desarme" de la RPDC al pronunciar un discurso de campana electoral en el estado de Wisconsin el 18 de agosto de 2004 y otras ocasiones. Asi es clara la intencion de Estados Unidos. Es ingenuo pensar que la RPDC deponga sus armas nucleares producidas a costa de tantos esfuerzos.
    La RPDC expreso, a traves de la declaracion del portavoz del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores fechada 23 de agosto de 2004 y otras oportunidades, la clara posicion de que la parte norteamericana debe dejar de sonar con el "desarme" de la RPDC.
    Seria bueno recordar bien de ella.
    En estos dias Japon habla imprudentemente del "incondicional retorno a conversaciones" de la RPDC y de "sancion" contra esta a instigacion de Estados Unidos. Originalmente, este pais isleno no tiene calificacion de participar en las conversaciones a seis bandas porque es fiel lacayo de Estados Unidos.
    Es inalterable la posicion de principios de la RPDC de mantener la meta de desnuclearizacion de la Peninsula Coreana y resolver por via pacifica el problema nuclear mediante el dialogo y negociaciones.
    Cuando Estados Unidos, al dar pruebas de su sinceridad y accion confiables, prepare las condiciones y justificacion para reanudar las conversaciones a seis bandas, la RPDC estara presente cuando quiera en la mesa de conversaciones.
    Si a pesar de nuestra justa demanda la administracion Bush no muestra la sinceridad alguna sino dilata el tiempo con rutinario trompeteo de "reanudacion de las conversaciones a seis bandas" y otros por el estilo, no resultara mal tampoco para la RPDC.
    Se registraran sin falta en la historia los actos de la administracion Bush que destruyo la base de la dicha cita haciendo mas abierta su politica hostil encaminada al "derrocamiento del sistema" de la RPDC y elimino todas las condiciones y la justificacion del dialogo impidiendo asi la solucion del problema nuclear, y Estados Unidos nos lo pagara debidamente.