Noting that the world is paying due attention to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula beset with the biggest danger of a nuclear war in the world, witnessing the conclusion of a new START between Russia and the U.S., the commentary goes on:

In order to build confidence between the DPRK and the U.S. it is imperative to conclude a peace treaty for putting an end to the state of war, the source of hostile relations, to begin with. The mode of pushing ahead with the denuclearization process before discussing the issue of establishing a peace-keeping mechanism on the Korean Peninsula ended in failure.

There is no other alternative than to conclude a peace treaty if the vicious cycle of distrust between the DPRK and the U.S. is to be removed and the denuclearization process is to be pushed forward through confidence-building.

To conclude a peace treaty is the only reasonable and realistic way for the successful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

It is not possible to dissolve distrust for an indefinite period nor is it possible to ensure the smooth progress of talks, much less achieving denuclearization as long as parties concerned are technically at war with their guns leveled at each other.

Had a durable peace regime been established on the Korean Peninsula earlier, there would not have surfaced the nuclear issue nor the denuclearization issue been raised. The conclusion of a peace treaty would help dissolve the hostile relations between the DPRK and the U.S. and give a powerful impetus to the process for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

There is no doubt that just a start of the negotiations for concluding a peace treaty would provide an effective engine for advancing the process of denuclearization.

If the U.S. truly hopes for the denuclearization of the peninsula, it should stop insisting on the unrealistic assertion that the DPRK "dismantle its nuclear weapons first," though belatedly, and promptly respond to concluding a peace treaty with the DPRK.