They described the positive signs that were seen in the north-south relations as a "result of their adherence to the principle" while the stalemate as an "unavoidable pain" in the course of "adhering to the principle". They also excused their anti-DPRK provocative moves as an act for showing "principle". But no one will be taken in by such a poor excuse.

The public is unanimous in assessing it as sophism for maintaining confrontation.

One can clearly understand it from the contents of the "principle" which the puppet forces call for adhering to.

The core of the principle envisages turning the "abnormal relations" in the period of the June 15 era into "normal state-to-state relations consistent with international norms" and leading the "north into change" through international cooperation for pressure and thus realizing "reunification under the liberal democratic system".

It was, in a word, meant to establish "new framework of south-north relations" in which the south is neither being led by the north nor making a concession. This was raised by traitor Lee Myung Bak only to be thrown into the dustbin.

The principle further traces back to the "policy toward the north" pursued by "yusin" dictator who earned an ill fame in the north-south relations.

Traitor Park Chung-hee was a die-hard confrontational maniac who was buoyed with the ambition for "unification by prevailing over communism" while trumpeting about "confrontation accompanying dialogue" and "contest of social systems".

That's why he put up the theory of "two Koreas" proposed by the U.S. and worked hard to keep the nation divided for an indefinite period soon after he signed the July 4 north-south joint statement.

He insisted on state-to-state relations on the Korean Peninsula and pushed forward his plan to fix the division of the nation while denying the homogeneity of the nation whose history spans 5 000 years.

Not satisfied with the territorial and national division at the hands of outsiders, he committed the traitorous crime of building a concrete wall, physically bisecting the peninsula into two parts.

The same is the case with the "north policy" pursued by Park Geun Hye.

She openly claims that she entered the political arena to "restore the honor of her father as a politician". After taking office she has left no means untried to call back the departed soul of "yusin". This speaks volumes for her true colors.

The chief executive openly spoke ill of the social system and policy of the fellow countrymen in the north and solicited for cooperation for escalating confrontation with them. In the future "north policy" orientation document that was crafted shortly ago she even denied part of the October 4 declaration and added such provocative provisions as the "north's nuclear issue" and institution of "north human rights act".

Given the development of the situation for the less than a year, no one can vouch that she would not commit traitorous acts more hideous than what her father committed and can go impudent calling for "adhering to principle" in a bid to attain her sinister intention.

Park's "theory of adhering to principle" is, in the final analysis, a theory of escalating confrontation in the period of "yusin", a replica of the theory of fixing division and the extension of the theory of inciting a war.

The principle to be held fast to by the north and the south is the three principles of national reunification-independence, peaceful reunification and the great national unity-and the idea of "By our nation itself" clarified in the historic north-south joint declarations. There can never be any other principle.

The puppet regime will meet a miserable end earlier should it keep escalating confrontation with fellow countrymen while opposing the truth of the times and history.