After the Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK met U.S. State Secretary Pompeo on a visit to Pyongyang, the DPRK-U.S. relations that had been on a stalemate began to roll again.

Speaking before reporters after his Pyongyang visit, Pompeo said that his visit was quite good and that the DPRK and the U.S. had productive dialogue, noting with satisfaction that an important advance was made this time, too, and crucial progress would continue to be made.

Even heard from the White House are comments that Pompeo had very good meeting in the DPRK and it was advance beyond excellence and the current tempo of the DPRK-U.S. negotiations is remarkably fast.

Even rung out from south Korea and the international community are such voices that one can not but be skeptical about the truthfulness of images of Chairman Kim Jong Un and Pompeo with bright smiles on their faces and that it is supposed that candid discussion of the DPRK's measure and the U.S. corresponding measures was made, which led to an optimistic prospect that this will have very positive impact on the situation of the Korean peninsula.

But ill-boding remarks are heard from the U.S. now as if to jeer such positive observation of the public, shocking the world.

Openly heard from off-year election campaigning rally places and press conferences are such call that sanctions must be continued until denuclearization is realized and that something must be taken more out of the DPRK in order to lift sanctions.

The U.S. State Department just repeats the stereo-typed words that "defusing sanctions on the DPRK is possible only after denuclearization", disallowing even the application for visit to the DPRK for humanitarian projects which had been exceptionally approved in the past and putting pressure on all sides on the south Korean authorities not to advance the south-north relations ahead of the denuclearization.

Even the White House made such threatening words that the north and the south can not go ahead with the implementation of the historic joint declaration "without an approval by the U.S.", enraging not only south Koreans but all other Koreans.

Every sound made in the world is bound to leave echo.

So offending us are the coarse words heard from the U.S. even before the sound of cheers made in Pyongyang with smiles died out.

They could have been made to flatter the hard-liners in their policy toward the DPRK in order to create favorable political environment before the off-year election in November.

But one should be able to think that what they say are heard by those in the DPRK even though they are said in the U.S. and be able to think and speak from the position of the dialogue partner.

The U.S., which is quite well aware that there was very excellent conversation in which mutual stands were fully understood and views were exchanged during Pompeo's visit to Pyongyang, is responding to good faith with evil. This is enough to stun the world.

In front it thrust its hand asking for friendship but behind the scene it is making irrelevant remarks. It is something quite far away from common sense, to say nothing of diplomatic practices.

In fact, the U.S. intent to keep on sanctions means that it would not stop hostile policy. This, in other words, means that it would stop improving relations.

A U.S. high-ranking official looking after the DPRK-U.S. negotiations, shortly ago, was so natural to spit it out that the DPRK should not consider the U.S. keeping sanctions and maintaining watching attitude as an expression of hostility toward it.

Is the barbarous strangling aimed at stamping out the right to existence and the right to living of the Korean people an expression of good faith and friendship, if not that of hostility.

Mankind defined encroachment upon the sovereignty and economic independence of other countries, economic pressure measures threatening the base of the economic lifeline of a country and economic blockade against other countries as an act of aggression in the "treaty on definition of aggression" which was adopted and took effect in the 1930s.

Hostile policy and reciprocity can not go together.

If the U.S. intends to be stubborn in its sanctions, which means to continue to pursue hostile policy, is the Singapore Joint Statement which promised to end the extreme hostile relations between the DPRK and the U.S. and to open up new future of any worth and what did the U.S. president mean by "big progress" which he bragged.

Does it mean to dare apply American diplomatic formula meant to "hold a big stick to talk to a dialogue partner" to the DPRK.

It would be awkward for the U.S. with the two faces of Yanus to look at the DPRK in its just eyes and, therefore, it would be comfortable for it to approach the DPRK-U.S. negotiations with cooled-down attitude.

What should be emphasized again is that it is quite a contradiction and a faulty expression for the U.S. to continue to call for maintaining sanctions and pressure on the DPRK in response to its proactive and preemptive measures for denuclearization.

Quite long period has passed since the DPRK stopped nuclear tests and inter-continental ballistic rocket launches and it is, therefore, natural for "sanctions measures" taken on that pretexts to disappear accordingly.

What matters is that the U.S. president himself, whenever opportunities presented themselves, bragged that the DPRK does not conduct nuclear tests and ballistic missile launch tests and that he saved millions of lives but it is just all of the reactions to the measures taken by the DPRK in good faith.

No wonder, big powers like China and Russia contend that the processes for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the establishment of peace-keeping mechanism should be progressed in a phased and simultaneous way and be accompanied by corresponding actions by countries concerned.

It is a common practice to offer for what is given but the U.S. which does not know offering after being given is natural to be jeered by the world as "America which does not even belch after swallowing a whole chicken".

What becomes clearer with passing time is the true intention sought by the U.S. through sanctions.

It is an undeniable reality that denuclearization and sanctions are misused as tools for meeting party interests and strategies of the political forces within the U.S., not to solve bottleneck problems between the DPRK and the U.S. to even a certain extent.

The reason is clear. If it is sincere in its stand of respecting the spirit of the Singapore DPRK-U.S. Joint Statement and of hoping for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, it can not be so unreasonable and inefficient in handling the DPRK-U.S. relations as now.

The hard-liners fail to approach the issue of the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula from the stand for peace of humankind but use it as a material for attacking the diplomatic policy of the government whereas the Trump administration has not gotten rid of the policy of one-sided pressure on the DPRK while reading the faces of the hard-liners. No wonder, the fundamental interests of the DPRK-U.S. relations are deeply mired in its evil cycle to suffer losses.

It is also a well-known fact that sanctions are being misused as a "rope" for keeping many countries around the world tied within the sphere of its influence while being used as a tool for domestic policy by the U.S. at the same time.

When viewed in this context, it is clear why the U.S. insists with its ears closed that it would keep sanctions until a clear signal is heard from someone while saying with its eyes closed that no movement for denuclearization can be seen from the DPRK.

The U.S. politicians must clearly understand that the DPRK-U.S. relations and furthermore the world peace are mocked and insulted as the sanctions which hold no more pretext and value are being misused by the political forces of the U.S. for meeting their interests.

All our people say that the U.S. is a country which only knows receiving, not giving, and it is so narrow-minded for a superpower.

It is hard to guess till when and up to where the big U.S. is going to dangle on the unilateral good faith and magnanimity of the DPRK.

The U.S. must lend an ear to the advice of the international community which strongly urges the U.S. to stop the sanctions on the DPRK, saying that no problem can be solved only by means of sanctions and pressure.

Unless U.S. takes flexible and realistic measures, being away from the stiffened way of thinking dating back to the past, the "sanctions" would only become a chain shackling the U.S. from advancing toward the world and future before pressuring the one it aims.

Counting on the U.S. above all, the DPRK made a promise with it to end the hostile relations of over 70 years and make common efforts for peace in the Korean peninsula and the world, and has taken a series of measures in good faith.

If the U.S. does not take any trustful measures for clearing up the concerns of the DPRK which it is quite well aware of, it is clear that the DPRK-U.S. relations would become such far apart and the settlement of the nuclear issue of the Korean peninsula would be such distant.

Such U.S. acts of playing a double game and only forcing the unilateral demand on the DPRK as now would be little short of destroying the tower which the top leaders of the two countries built by taking the advantage of the miraculous opportunity and with painstaking efforts.

It is difficult to advance the DPRK-U.S. negotiations even an inch with an obstacle called sanctions kept on the rail, however loudly the whistle is blown.

A new page of the DPRK-U.S. relations can be written only with a soft brush, not with a rough stick.