It Would Be Better To Search For A New Way Rather Than Facing A Barrier In The Old Way

A commentary “it would be better to search for a new way rather than facing a barrier in the old way” was made public by Jong Hyon on Thursday. The “handshake of epochal significance” between the top leaders of the DPRK and the U.S., which had been at the greatest odds on earth, in Singapore on June 12 and the subsequent publication of the DPRK-U.S. joint statement evoked the world’s repercussion as a “strong message of peace” and “blessing on humankind”, the commentary said, and went on:

Six months have passed since then, but in the course of analysing in detail the hardly understandable words and acts the U.S. made when approaching the DPRK-U.S. relations and its improper behaviours seen during negotiations, we would see what the knotty problem is.

It was the U.S. misguided understanding of the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

In other words, the U.S. regards the big concept of the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula as the same as the partial concept of the “denuclearisation of north Korea”.

The June 12 DPRK-U.S. joint statement signed by the top leaders of both sides and supported by the whole world does not contain any phrase called “denuclearisation of north Korea.” It only contains the phrase “denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula”.

However, the State secretary of the U.S. who took part in the epochal event in Singapore himself is asserting that “north Korea committed itself to complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation of north Korea there”. This is something aghast.

By replacing the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula with “the denuclearisation of north Korea”, the U.S. tries to cause the optical illusion of the people in their view of the DPRK-U.S. relations, and stop them from making a correct judgement.

The U.S. must have a clear understanding of the phrase, denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, and study geography, in particular, before it is too late.

When we refer to the Korean peninsula, they include both the area of the DPRK and the area of south Korea where aggression troops including the nuclear weapons of the U.S. are deployed.

When we refer to the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, it, therefore, means removing all elements of nuclear threats from the areas of both the north and south of Korea and also from surrounding areas from where the Korean peninsula is targetted. This should be clearly understood.

Therefore, it is a self-evident truth that the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula is a joint work which can never come true unless the DPRK and the U.S. make joint efforts.

It was the U.S. which forced the DPRK to possess the nuclear weapons as a war deterrent as the former posed steady threats to the latter with nuclear weapons through the deployment of nuclear strategic assets and nuclear war exercises after shipping massive nuclear weapons to the Korean peninsula which was originally non-nuclear zone.

In the light of this fact, it would be proper to say that the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula means “completely removing the nuclear threats of the U.S. to the DPRK”, before it means the elimination of its nuclear deterrence.

However, we have shown the U.S. which has thousands of nuclear weapons enough to destroy the earth several times, the country which has not changed even a single point-mark in its nuclear attack map targeting the DPRK, our will to denuclearisation in practice and in a pre-emptive way, not in words.

What we asked the U.S. to take as a corresponding measure was not a thing that is hard to describe and hard to put into practice for the U.S.

The end of the hostile policy toward the DPRK and the lift of unwarranted sanctions measures are what the U.S. can do without a knuckle of finger, only if it has a will.

If the U.S. sincerely wishes for the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, can it go so strange as now?

It is persisting in the maintenance of sanctions on the DPRK and pressure over the issue of “human rights”. It seems it is thinking of rattling the DPRK, a country of high sense of dignity, and disrupting the negotiations. Or is it trying to find a way of derailing the improvement of relations and the denuclearisation process by inventing absurd “evidence” called “strange signs” in nuclear and missile bases of the DPRK.

Voices of concern are heard from the U.S. to the effect that finding a way for the denuclearisation, given the present stalemate of the DPRK-U.S. negotations, would be like a groping for a way in the middle of a desert.

But there is a way.

If the U.S. gives up the ambition for denuclearisation by dint of high-handed practices and pressure and unilateral “denuclearisation of north Korea”, the way-out will be shown. Only when it keenly realises that the application of American formula that “diplomacy is the continuation of war by dint of other means of violence” and the persistence of “maximum pressure” will invite disastrous results, the road will come to its sight.

It would be better to look for a new way, rather than facing a barrier on the old way.