The present Japanese authorities are disregarding the impartial verification procedures in line with the phase of disabling nuclear facilities agreed upon between the DPRK and the United States and feel displeased with the issue of verification though it is enough to convince the international community for its reasonable nature and justice.

The Aso government authorities were opposed to the verification method even before the DPRK was delisted as "a state sponsor of terrorism," asserting that "no concession should be allowed over procedures of verification of the nuclear program of north Korea." They are still sticking to the theory of "strict nuclear verification."

As known to everybody, full understanding between the DPRK and the U.S. is the core of the issue of nuclear verification for denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula.

It is by no means fortuitous that the U.S. State Department clarified that "it got considerable cooperation over the issue of verification."

The measure taken to cross the DPRK off the list of "state sponsors of terrorism" according to the agreement on the impartial verification procedures reached between both sides constitutes a very realistic step for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and the region.

This is a product of the principle of "action for action." That is why there is no ground to find fault with this.

What Japan is now claiming under the pretext of "nuclear verification" glaringly reveals its present regime's stance towards the DPRK.

The successive Japanese ruling forces' hostile policy towards the DPRK, their chronic disease, has remained unchanged since its emergence and got more undisguised in its nature.

Japan's negative attitude is a deliberate move to hamstring the implementation of the denuclearization of the peninsula.

In the past Japan adopted a "resolution" at the Diet urging the U.S. not to make haste in fulfilling the commitments under the February 13 agreement, asserting that the U.S. plan to take the DPRK off the list of "state sponsors of terrorism" would seriously affect the Japan-U.S. alliance.

It is the wish of Japan to see the U.S. satisfying its taste, not wedded to the universally accepted understanding of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the rest of the Asia-Pacific region and international relations. Nothing is more impudent and brazen-faced than this attitude.

Japan can hardly be considered as a party to the six-party talks both in the light of what it has done at the talks so far and the insincere stance taken by it towards the fulfillment of its commitments under the agreement reached at the talks.

It is, indeed, preposterous for Japan to create complexities in the way of the talks, imprudently expressing a different opinion on the "nuclear verification."

The countries concerned still remember the hurdles laid by Japan to create complexities in the way of the talks. They are, therefore, cautious about the present Japanese government bringing to light its sinister intention, displeased with the current development.

Japan now deserves cool treatment for opposing the new "verification proposal" of the DPRK under the pretext of the "alliance." It is now running helter-skelter, left behind alone after the U.S. announcement of its above-said decision.

The Aso regime seems to feel lonely as it is unable to foresee even a bit.

If the Japanese politicians have even an iota of conscience, they had better be wise, though belatedly, not losing an opportunity to provide them with a favorable condition for making a switchover in the policy towards the DPRK. This would be a beneficial option for them.