A spokesman for the Policy Department of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK issued a statement on Wednesday, prompted by its desire to keep the hard-won atmosphere of improving the north-south relations afloat and open up their prospect.

The south Korean authorities should, to begin with, stop dishonest demeanors of ceaselessly floating story that "security crisis was caused by the north first" and it is "chiefly to blame" for the recent dangerous crisis.

The chief executive of south Korea blustered at Chongwadae that "the crisis was caused by the north's landmine and shelling".

Kim Kwan Jin, chief of the security office of Chongwadae who came to the contact, is spreading rumor that the south wrested "apology from the north", claiming that the north "made an apology" for "planting landmine" and pledged to make efforts to defuse tensions and prevent the recurrence of the case.

Worse still, Hong Yong Phyo, minister of "Unification", unhesitatingly let loose a spate of sophism that "May 24 step" can be lifted when priority is given to the "north's apology" for the Cheonan warship sinking case, measure for preventing the recurrence of the case and punishment of those responsible for it as this opportunity is the "first instance" in which the south wrested a "sure apology" from the north and the south laid a "stepping stone for ending the vicious cycle".

What is strange is that the south Korean authorities are spreading rumor that "regret" expressed by the north in the joint press release is the north's "admission" and "apology" for the suspicious case which occurred in the Demilitarized Zone.

They asserted that the word "regret" means the "apology of north Korean style" as it is a technical term which contains the intention of "apology" both from the legal point of view and in the light of practice at international political negotiations.

A linguistic expert of south Korea said that "expression of regret" means, in fact, "the intention of inquiring after a sick person," clarifying its true meaning.

In a word, "regret" is no more than an expression that "I am sorry for the case".

A spokesman for the "Ministry of Unification", when asked on what ground it concluded the landmine blast in the DMZ as "a provocation from the north," was tongue-tied and simply uttered what was stated in the joint press release was a correct answer as he was not in a position to go into details."

This was quite different from the fact that the south remained silent about the blast of the similar "landmine" in the same place along the DMZ on August 23.

"Mine blast" of such kind that occurred in the DMZ is just a common accident.

Misjudgment of the rival would only entail catastrophic consequences in the north-south relations. The south should not forget this even a moment.

Next, the south Korean authorities should stop such foolish act of bluffing that the adoption of the joint press release was a "victory of theory of principle" won by them.

The south Korean political camp is noisily claiming that the south "won a score" and the north "lost a score" in the match for weathering the recent crisis.

Kim Kwan Jin and Hong Yong Phyo are main players here.

They are asserting that the joint press release was a result of the negotiations based on their consistent principle in which the "government" flatly rejected the north's demand even though it urged the south to stop anti-north loudspeaker broadcasts while creating crisis.

Those concerned of Chongwadae are also vociferating that the south forced the north to accept "the theory of principle" while "highly estimating the joint press release as it contained an apology from the north and its promise to prevent the recurrence of such incident as requested by Park Geun Hye."

An agreement by both sides is possible on mutual understanding of agenda items and recognition of them.

The south Korean chief executive, not content with getting busy making "encouraging phone calls", called law-makers from the "Saenuri Party" to Chongwadae on August 26 where she highly appreciated the joint press release as a result of "firm will" and "security awareness based on principle". She even praised the negotiators for "approaching the contact on principle for the security of the people and the country". This is something beyond common sense.

Irony is that the representative of the "Saenuri Party" said the "only way of checking the north's provocation" is "resolute punishment" just the way he uttered before his American master while kowtowing to it. In response to his nonsense, such rubbish as "theory of principle for security" backed by "flank support" and "action of keeping pace" were heard all at the same time.

We are of the view that the successful tide-over of the crisis and the adoption of the joint press release were ascribable to the powerful capability for defence of the DPRK based on nuclear forces and the might of the single-minded unity of the army and people of the country.

This is also the result of the unanimous desire of all the Koreans to live in a peaceful environment free from confrontation and war.

It was a fair estimation by the world public.

The south Korean authorities should stop at once pointing an accusing finger at the DPRK, asserting that the accounts of the briefing made by the director of the General Political Bureau of the KPA on the result of the urgent contact were different from what was said at the contact."

The conservative reptile media in south Korea are misleading the public mindset, asserting the director of the General Political Bureau of the Korean People's Army was "double-tongued" when he claimed that "the south Korean regime fabricated a groundless case and unilaterally judged the situation which was created unilaterally" and that the "government should protest against it."

What the director of the KPA General Political Bureau mentioned as regards the urgent contact reflected the stand of the party, army and people of the DPRK.

Saying this or that about it cannot but be viewed as a behavior devoid of elementary etiquette toward the dialogue partner.

What should not be overlooked is that the south Korean authorities unhesitatingly made such ridiculous remarks that they should not slacken alert, pinning hope on improving the north-south relations, but avoid "over-speed".

The security meeting of Chongwadae held on August 27 called for refraining from having "too much optimism" as the north-south negotiations are not over but they are just a beginning.

A spokesman for the "Ministry of Unification" even said that speedy development of the north-south relations should be avoided as the "May 24 step" has not yet been lifted and, therefore, "not much should be expected from the reunions of separated families and relatives".

Assertion calling for avoiding "speedy" development of the north-south ties is a revelation of ill intention of cross-minded guys who are displeased with the improvement and development of the north-south ties.

Yun Pyong Se went the lengths of talking such rubbish that the adoption of the joint press release is a "victory of the close south Korea-U.S. alliance".

The south Korean authorities' reckless act has reached the phase of staging "integrated firepower annihilating drill 2015" targeting the compatriots in the north.

Paying no heed to the changed atmosphere, the warmongers opened fire at "red marks" designated according to "operation" allegedly to cope with "north's provocation", military confrontation hysteria and wanton infringement upon the dignity of the DPRK.

The gravity of the situation was that even the south Korean chief executive joined warmongers to hurl them into the confrontation racket.

Dialogue is not a veil for concealing the confrontation scenario.

Nothing will be more shameless than trumpeting about the implementation of the agreement while staging saber-rattling.

Very serious are these developments in just several days after the publication of the joint press release.

The north-south relations can never be mended by unilateral sincere efforts.

The south Korean authorities should not make a foolish misinterpretation of the hard weathering of such crisis on the eve of war and refrain from such act as threatening the hard-won peace.

Those who took part in the contact, in particular, should be prudent in their remarks.

What is essential at present is that any remark and any behavior would be a barometer judging whether one has etiquette of respecting one's dialogue partner or considering one as an object of mistrust and antagonism.

The south Korean authorities should pay heed with utmost consideration to the advice of the DPRK reflecting its patience and generosity.

An agreement by both sides should be implemented and one step taken today will lead to ten, nay hundreds steps tomorrow.

The tiding over of the crisis does not mean the achievement of peace

We are following with higher vigilance the future moves of the south Korean authorities.