The commentary reads in full:

What is recently heard from the U.S. over the Korean issue makes the world people confused.

On one hand it is advertised that U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo's Pyongyang visit made a "great achievement" desired by the U.S. and, on the other hand, the "sustained sanction" unpleasant to the ear is heard so much.

Heard from campaign venues of the U.S. are such voices that it has a very good relationship with north Korea and there is no threat at present, though the former was going to war with the latter in the past. Whereas it is heard from news conference and other places that sanctions should be sustained until north Korea does something and there is no idea of lifting the sanctions on it.

The U.S. Department of State stated that the visit to Pyongyang was very productive and successful and what was discussed with the DPRK was a "great progress," showing a desire to have technical talks at an early date. On the other hand, it contended that the U.S. constant stand is "denuclearization first and lifting of sanctions next," forcing the south Korean authorities not to accelerate the north-south cooperation and urging Southeast Asian and European countries to intensify the cooperation in putting pressure upon the DPRK.

The U.S. consented to the outstanding issues and the concerns of the DPRK in Pyongyang, but denied the consensus later. It "voiced full support" for the improvement of inter-Korean relations at the Singapore summit, but now checks the inter-Korean cooperation, claiming that "it is impossible without the consent from the U.S."

Lack of logic in the words and deeds of the U.S. only causes a doubt.

Which of the two faces of the U.S. is true, smiling or abrupt?

Does the U.S. really want to improve its relationship with the DPRK or does it have some other intention?

We wonder whether the U.S. administration suffers from psychological confusion under the weight of some political pressure and irritation at home.

Even The New York Times, commenting on such words and deeds changing at any time and place and inconsistent attitude, said that the government sends confusing messages and pursues the policy of sanctions on the DPRK only to cause empty threat and confusion.

Of course, we are aware of the "embarrassing situation" and "awkward position" of the White House with the November off-year election of U.S. Congress just ahead.

We are well aware that the political situation of the U.S. is very complicated and this makes it difficult for the administration to make a decision and push ahead with it.

Due to those who insist on "hard line" against their will and set themselves against Trump's policy, the U.S. political climate is on the verge of disaster.

Some of them claim that they should not be deceived and they cannot trust sincerity of north Korea toward denuclearization, whereas some people say that maximum pressure should be maintained aside from dialogue and lowering the level of the pressure will lead to a great mistake. Some people try to cause a nuclear-phobia, saying that what will be beyond imagination is allowing north Korea to develop nukes. This is the present American political situation in which the truth and falsity are confused by such assertions.

Commenting on such stunning situation, even ex-President Obama deplored that the U.S. politics is becoming mean, illiberal and dishonorable and rampant in the political camp are bluffing, offensive, insult, false assertion and bogus anger.

It is clear to everyone that the opposition forces' noisy talk about denuclearization and escalation of sanctions are to annoy the Trump administration and become occupants of the Oval Office and Congress, not out of a good will for peace.

It is just a paradox of the mean politicians who are utterly ignorant of the DPRK and have never thought of the most realistic way of denuclearization.

This being a hard fact, is it good for the U.S. administration to keep reading the face of the opposition forces? The U.S. administration can never pave its own way for the truth, if it keeps turning its ear to such rumors.

What matters is that the U.S. administration, being much afraid of the grumblings by the hard-liners at home, is insensitive to the fact that its dialogue partner feels nervous about its unfaithful deed and double-faced attitude.

Americans obsessed with hypocrisy, deception, arrogance and self-complacency may regard such unilateral and double-faced behavior as something normal and natural. But they should know that it is just an unpardonable insult to Koreans who like to do everything in a pure and explicit manner and set much store by faith and promise.

If what Americans said in Pyongyang is utterly different from what they said in Washington and if their remarks are entirely different from what they think of, the tower of mutual confidence built with much effort will become futile like building the tower with eggs.

It seems that the U.S. regards the negotiations with the DPRK not as the ones for putting an end to the history of hostility and distrust lingering century after century and for establishing the new relations of trust but as a black-hearted kiss.

The whole world hailed the meeting of the top leaders of the two countries in Singapore as an "epochal meeting" and a "meeting changing history". It was because the world thought that the U.S. finally dropped the strong-arm policy and opted for dialogue and negotiations.

Americans gave applause to the measures of goodwill taken by the DPRK but now cry out for constantly brandishing the club of pressure. It is hard to discern what is true and what is false in their language.

Even at a time when the DPRK-U.S. talks were proceeding in an amicable atmosphere in Pyongyang, Americans at home openly cried out for not dropping the club of "pressure", asserting "pressure" is the main card for tackling the issue.

It seems that they failed to sense the on-going situation.

That's why the international community comments that the U.S. is not interested in the give-and-take-style negotiations but only hopes that the DPRK would be pressurized into surrender, and that the U.S. is just short-sighted to see the far-reaching development as it too deeply sticks to denuclearization.

A bird flies with its two wings, but the U.S., with its wings furled, only urges the DPRK to fly. The U.S. may be just called a dishonest man who likes receiving, not giving anything, and the DPRK doing it favors in return for nothing can be called a great man. The international community is sneering at the U.S. like this.

In the UN arena Russia strongly opposes the on-going pressure on the DPRK, holding that sanctions can never be a substitute for diplomacy, and China also contends that doing everything by force will bring about disastrous results.

But the U.S., due to its half-done double-dealing way of thinking and behavior, fails to discern what is big and what is small, and even lost the senses of proportion and balance in the quagmire of confusion in the goal and means.

It seems that Americans have just come to be ignorant of what goals they seek -- global peace and stability or sanctions and pressure--, being at the end of their tether due to their fierce internal dispute.

Consistency of thinking and deeds can be ensured and the DPRK-U.S. negotiations can progress toward their original goals on the fixed track only when the U.S. doesn't lose its way although it is plagued with difficulties caused by the dispute in its internal politics.

We do not want good will and generosity of the U.S. but urge it to act in the elementary give-and-take principle.

The DPRK holds that the DPRK-U.S. relations can be improved only when they are based on mutual confidence, but the U.S. insists that the bilateral relations can be improved through tightened sanctions and pressure. There is no need to question whose assertion is right.

Koreans dislike and hate duplicity and two-faced behavior.

The U.S. should deal with the DPRK with sincerity, instead of depending on double-dealing tactics.

And it had better look on the successful future with soft face, not looking back upon the failed past with black face.