Pyongyang, April 14 (KCNA) -- A spokesman for the Committee
for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea (CPRK) Sunday gave an answer to a
question put by the KCNA as regards the recent proposal of dialogue
made by the incumbent chief executive and the puppet minister of
Unification of south Korea.
The chief executive at a dinner with parliamentary members from the "Saenuri Party" at Chongwadae on Thursday clarified her stand to resume dialogue with the north.
Minister of Unification Ryu Kil Jae said on the same day in an exceptional "statement to the north" that he "hoped the north's authorities will show up at a conference room for dialogue especially for the discussion of issues of the north side's own concern", calling for settling the issue of normalizing the Kaesong Industrial Zone through dialogue.
As regards this, the core member concerned of Chongwadae said Ryu's statement was an official proposal of dialogue that reflected the will of the chief executive.
But to us, it is nothing but a crafty trick to cover up their crimes of driving the Kaesong Industrial Zone into a crisis and their nature of confrontation by misleading the public opinion, the spokesman said, and went on:
Those, keen on "sanctions" and "pressure", nuclear war maneuvers against the DPRPK and moves for confrontation with fellow countrymen in league with foreign forces, talked about dialogue, not uttering a word of apologizing or claiming responsibility in disregard of their crimes. This shameless act is an insult to and a mockery of the DPRK.
The Foal Eagle war maneuvers are now being staged in south Korea and the U.S. and the puppet warmongers are deeply engaged in the moves for igniting a war against the DPRK under the pretext of its military countermeasures.
As for the proposal for dialogue, it is an empty word without any content.
Those, who fostered the present grave situation, showed no candid and sincere attitude toward the dialogue with the north but took the stand of listening to what the north thinks and wants. This is the height of arrogance.
Worse still, the chief executive and the minister of Unification of south Korea let loose a spate of venomous outcries for "provocation", "dismantlement of nukes", "change" and "repetition of vicious cycle" toward the north to whom it proposed dialogue. This goes to fully prove that they still harbor hostility and intention for confrontation.
Do they think is it possible to have dialogue under such situation and have they ever thought of what results will such dialogue produce.
The present chief executive of south Korea appears to follow the policy of transferring to the "confrontation with dialogue" from "confrontation without dialogue" touted by the "yusin regime" early in the 1970s. If she really hopes it, she had better stop the farce of dialogue.
The north-south dialogue is neither a game nor verbal spar. Such dialogue will be meaningless and useless.
The south Korean authorities can never evade the blame for the present acute situation though they are resorting to crafty moves, misleading public opinion.
Confrontation is incompatible with dialogue.
If they have true intent for dialogue, they should drop the attitude of confrontation, to begin with, not getting inveigled in wordplay.
The possibility of dialogue entirely depends on their attitude. -0-
The chief executive at a dinner with parliamentary members from the "Saenuri Party" at Chongwadae on Thursday clarified her stand to resume dialogue with the north.
Minister of Unification Ryu Kil Jae said on the same day in an exceptional "statement to the north" that he "hoped the north's authorities will show up at a conference room for dialogue especially for the discussion of issues of the north side's own concern", calling for settling the issue of normalizing the Kaesong Industrial Zone through dialogue.
As regards this, the core member concerned of Chongwadae said Ryu's statement was an official proposal of dialogue that reflected the will of the chief executive.
But to us, it is nothing but a crafty trick to cover up their crimes of driving the Kaesong Industrial Zone into a crisis and their nature of confrontation by misleading the public opinion, the spokesman said, and went on:
Those, keen on "sanctions" and "pressure", nuclear war maneuvers against the DPRPK and moves for confrontation with fellow countrymen in league with foreign forces, talked about dialogue, not uttering a word of apologizing or claiming responsibility in disregard of their crimes. This shameless act is an insult to and a mockery of the DPRK.
The Foal Eagle war maneuvers are now being staged in south Korea and the U.S. and the puppet warmongers are deeply engaged in the moves for igniting a war against the DPRK under the pretext of its military countermeasures.
As for the proposal for dialogue, it is an empty word without any content.
Those, who fostered the present grave situation, showed no candid and sincere attitude toward the dialogue with the north but took the stand of listening to what the north thinks and wants. This is the height of arrogance.
Worse still, the chief executive and the minister of Unification of south Korea let loose a spate of venomous outcries for "provocation", "dismantlement of nukes", "change" and "repetition of vicious cycle" toward the north to whom it proposed dialogue. This goes to fully prove that they still harbor hostility and intention for confrontation.
Do they think is it possible to have dialogue under such situation and have they ever thought of what results will such dialogue produce.
The present chief executive of south Korea appears to follow the policy of transferring to the "confrontation with dialogue" from "confrontation without dialogue" touted by the "yusin regime" early in the 1970s. If she really hopes it, she had better stop the farce of dialogue.
The north-south dialogue is neither a game nor verbal spar. Such dialogue will be meaningless and useless.
The south Korean authorities can never evade the blame for the present acute situation though they are resorting to crafty moves, misleading public opinion.
Confrontation is incompatible with dialogue.
If they have true intent for dialogue, they should drop the attitude of confrontation, to begin with, not getting inveigled in wordplay.
The possibility of dialogue entirely depends on their attitude. -0-
No comments:
Post a Comment