If the joint statement is to be implemented, the spirit of mutual respect and equality, which keeps the statement vital, should not be violated and there should not be such practice as distorting the order of action, the statement said, and went on:

The joint statement calls for "harmoniously" settling the issues of denuclearization, normalization of relations, energy compensation and the establishment of a peace-keeping regime. There is no agreed point that the issue of establishing a peace-keeping regime can be discussed only when denuclearization makes progress. Only the principle of "commitment for commitment" and "action for action" is laid down as the only principle for implementing the joint statement.

Taking the situation of the U.S. side into consideration, the DPRK made such magnanimous efforts as keeping the discussion of denuclearization ahead of the debate on the issue of concluding a peace treaty at the six-party talks for more than six years. In 2008 the international community witnessed the blowing up of the cooling tower of the nuclear facility in Nyongbyon. The process of denuclearization made such substantial progress that the U.S. stopped applying the Trading with the Enemy Act and de-listed the DPRK as a "sponsor of terrorism".

This notwithstanding, the debate on the conclusion of a peace treaty failed to kick off, consequently pushing back the process of denuclearization. The mode of pushing ahead with denuclearization before discussing the peace-keeping regime ended in failure. The practical experience proved that pushing forward denuclearization in the absence of confidence is just like building a house without a foundation.

The DPRK is not opposed to the six-party talks and has no ground whatsoever to delay them.

There happened such a thing as taking issue even with the satellite launch for peaceful purposes as there was no confidence among the parties to the talks. A satellite launch has never been considered as problematic among the countries that trust one another. Such extreme encroachment upon the sovereignty of a country as discriminately taking issue with its satellite launch compelled it to take such self-defensive counter-measure as a nuclear test and the resultant sanctions caused such a vicious cycle of distrust as bringing the six-party talks to a collapse.

It is the purport of the DPRK's proposal for concluding a peace treaty to put an end to such vicious cycle of distrust and build confidence to push forward denuclearization. There will be a starting point of confidence building only if the parties concerned sit at a negotiating table for concluding a peace treaty.

If the six-party talks are to take place again, it is necessary to seek whatever way of removing the factor of torpedoing them. The latest sanctions are not particularly new for the DPRK as it has got used to blockade and sanctions for decades. But if the DPRK goes out for the six-party talks, remaining subjected to the sanctions, such talks will not prove to be equal talks as clarified in the Sept. 19 Joint Statement but the talks between "defendant" and "judge". The dignity of the DPRK will never allow this to happen. It is nonsensical for the DPRK to sit at the negotiating table with those countries that violate its sovereignty, allowing it to be persistently encroached upon, and discuss with them the deterrent it built to defend its sovereignty.

The DPRK will continue to make sincere efforts to persuade the parties concerned into accepting its realistic proposal based on experience and lesson.