The protracted cease-fire on the peninsula, something unprecedented in the world history of cease-fire is little short of a time bomb posing constant threat to the security in East Asia and, furthermore, in the other regions of Asia-Pacific at present.

The conclusion of a peace treaty would mean the first step toward creating a peaceful environment on the Korean Peninsula.

This is not the issue different from the issue of the denuclearization of the peninsula.

The settlement of the issue of establishing a peace-keeping regime would lead to automatically solving other matters guaranteeing the peace process on the peninsula.

In the past a series of discussions including the six-party talks for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula had been held for six years, undergoing up and down and repeated failures. As their course indicates, this was attributable not to the order of action but to their failure to properly settle the fundamental issue.

It is the main purport and stand of the DPRK's proposal for concluding a peace treaty to build confidence to facilitate the denuclearization of the peninsula.

The conclusion of a peace treaty would mark the beginning of confidence-building and provide an occasion of wiping out distrust between the DPRK and the U.S. and establishing the relations of bilateral respect and equality in its course.

Confidence-building serves as a main reason why the AA should be replaced by a peace treaty.

The U.S. should fulfill its historic responsibility in ensuring peace on the peninsula.

The U.S. has so far intervened in the Korean issue as a party directly responsible for the conclusion of the AA and established its military control over south Korea.

No one can replace the U.S. in replacing the AA by a peace treaty.

The U.S. had already clarified on several occasions its official stand neither to pose a military threat to the DPRK nor invade it and shown its readiness to conclude a peace accord.

There is neither reason nor condition not to respond to the proposal for concluding a peace treaty replacing the present AA if the U.S. truly wants to coexist with the DPRK peacefully and wishes for peace of the Korean Peninsula.

The DPRK attaches very great importance to concluding a peace treaty.

This reflects the principled stand of the DPRK government to successfully solve all the problems arising in the relations between the DPRK and the U.S. including denuclearization and provide a sure guarantee for peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and, furthermore, in the rest of the world through the conclusion of a peace treaty.

The issue of concluding a peace treaty will find a smooth solution only if the U.S. has a political will to properly assess the changed situation and the trend of development of history and make a bold switchover in its DPRK policy in line with its interests and the aspiration of the world peace-loving people.

The satisfactory settlement of the issue of establishing a peace-keeping regime depends on the stands of the countries concerned.

It is in line with the interests of the countries concerned and the common interests of various countries in the Asia-Pacific region to protect peace and stability on the peninsula.

The conclusion of a peace treaty is neither a matter of one party giving benefits to the other party nor an issue of one party offering a reward to the other party but a fruitful political matter beneficial to the DPRK and the U.S. and the international community alike and substantially conducive to the preservation of the world peace.

How to approach the proposed peace treaty will be a touchstone distinguishing between those who wish for lasting peace in the Asia-Pacific region including the Korean Peninsula and those opposed to it.

The U.S. would be well advised to face up to the present trend of history and the developing situation and make a decision to replace the AA by a peace treaty as early as possible.