The issue of the declaration of the termination of the war on the Korean peninsula has emerged again at the 76th UN General Assembly.

It holds a symbolic meaning in that it is a political declaration of the termination of the ceasefire that the Korean peninsula has been in so far.

And it is clear that the termination of the war is what has to be dealt with for the establishment of peace-keeping mechanism on the peninsula in the future.

It will be truly admirable if peace comes to the Korean peninsula just by relevant parties holding a ceremony while having photos taken with the declaration document on the termination of war of no legal binding force.

But the true situation proves that the adoption of the declaration of the termination of the war is something premature.

The whole world knows that the Minuteman-3 ICBM test-launch in Vandenberg air force base in California in the U.S. mainland in February and August this year, the hasty declaration of the termination of the U.S.-south Korea missile guidelines in May this year and the U.S. approval for the sale of billions of dollars worth military hardware to Japan and south Korea are all targeted against the DPRK.

We are also following with alert the U.S. recent decision to transfer a nuclear-powered submarine building technology to Australia.

There is no vouch that the mere declaration of the termination of the war would lead to the withdrawal of the hostile policy toward the DPRK, under the present situation on the peninsula inching close to a touch-and-go situation.

It is by no means accidental that some view that starting discussion about it seems difficult at the moment, given differing interests and methods of calculation of relevant parties over the declaration of the termination of the war.

Underlying all the issues cropping up on the Korean peninsula is, without exception, the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK.

The U.S. forces and a huge number of its latest war assets which have already been deployed or are in the state of movement on the Korean peninsula and in its vicinity, including the ground, waters, air and underwater, and war drills annually held with various codenames all point to the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK getting vicious day by day.

The DPRK's just measures to bolster up the capability for defence to cope with the U.S. military threat to bring us down by force are described as "provocations" while the arms buildup escalated by the U.S. and its vassal forces to threaten the DPRK is justified as "deterrent". Such American-style double-dealing attitude is also a product of the hostile policy toward the DPRK.

Nothing will change as long as the political circumstances around the DPRK remains unchanged and the U.S. hostile policy is not shifted, although the termination of the war is declared hundreds of times.

On the contrary, the declaration will entail disastrous consequences of upsetting the strategic balance in the region and plunging the north and the south into an unending arms race, given the U.S.-south Korea alliance getting ever-toughened.

What's clear is that as long as there remains the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK, the biggest stumbling block in ending the war, the termination of the war will merely be nominal even though it is declared.

All these facts prove that it is still too early to declare the termination of the war.

It should be clearly understood that the declaration of the termination of the war is of no help at all to stabilizing the situation of the Korean peninsula at the moment but can rather be misused as a smokescreen covering up the U.S. hostile policy.

We have already clarified our official stand that the declaration of the termination of the war is not a "present" and it can become a mere scrap of paper in a moment upon changes in situations.

The U.S. withdrawal of its double-standards and hostile policy is top priority in stabilizing the situation of the Korean peninsula and ensuring peace on it.