The statement said that while some of them were motivated to call for dialogue by their concerns about the mounting tension on the Korean Peninsula, there was a country that deliberately raised the voice to bring pressure to bear on the DPRK.

Any attempt to side with those who claim the resumption of the six-party talks without grasping the essence of the matter will not help ease tension; on the contrary, it may lay a fifth wheel to the resolution of the problem.

Explaining the reason why the six-party talks came to a definite end, the statement noted:

Given the complicated composition of the six-party talks, the talks couldn't make progress apart from the principle of respect for sovereignty and equality.

With the exception of the DPRK, the only non-aligned country among the parties to the talks, the other parties were either permanent members of the United Nations Security Council or military allies of the United States.

In view of the extreme imbalance in the composition of the six-party talks, the most required principle was the respect for sovereignty and equality among the parties, the lifeblood of the talks.

That was why the "spirit of mutual respect for sovereignty and equality" was stipulated at the beginning of the Joint Statement which the six parties agreed on and signed on September 19, 2005.

However, this principle--the lifeblood of the six-party talks--was disregarded when we launched an artificial satellite for peaceful purposes on April 5 this year.

As is well known, we launched the satellite on a legitimate basis after going through the same relevant international procedures as other countries.

This being a hard reality, parties to the six-party talks took the lead in perpetrating a hostile act against the DPRK; they brought up the issue of its satellite launch for discussion at the United Nations Security Council in a discriminative manner which "denounced" and imposed "sanctions" on it.

As we have clarified in previous statements, the six-party talks were consequently reduced to a platform for blocking even the DPRK's development of science and technology for peaceful purposes and curbing the normal progress of its economy.

It became all the more clear that other parties are taking advantage of these six-party talks to seek their ulterior aims to disarm and incapacitate the DPRK so that it can only subsist on the bread crumbs thrown away by them.

The six-party talks departed from their original goal and nature so far due to the unchanged moves of the hostile forces to stifle the DPRK that they can hardly regain them.

The state of affairs would not have reached the current gridlock if the U.S. and other parties to the six-party talks had not resorted to the reckless and shameless moves to deprive the DPRK of its legitimate right to launch satellites by abusing the name of the United Nations Security Council.

The parties who now insist on the resumption of the six-party talks are in dead silence about their behaviour that scuttled the talks and sparked off confrontation.

This is the essence and the background of the current state of affairs, which the countries that are not parties to the six-party talks should understand. If these countries blindly respond to the call for the resumption of the six-party talks, contending that there is no other alternative, it doesn't help resolve the problem; it does more harm than good.

We value sovereignty and dignity as our life and soul. It is preposterous to consider the DPRK as a country acting at other's beck and call in the matters of the six-party talks.

As a party concerned, we know what should be done to resolve the problem far better than anyone else.

There is a specific and reserved form of dialogue that can address the current situation.