Pyongyang, April 23 (KCNA) -- The Committee for the Peaceful
Reunification of Korea (CPRK) sent an open questionnaire to Park Geun
Hye Wednesday asking her to give responsible answers to the questions as
to whether she stands for the improvement of the north-south relations
or seeks to escalate confrontation and whether she wants reunification
and peace against war.
Recalling that months-long Key Resolve and Foal Eagle war exercises
for invading the north are over, but the south Korean authorities'
confrontation with their compatriots and moves for a war against the
north are going on and their anti-reunification hysteria under the
signboard of "unification" is flouting the nation and disturbing the
world, the questionnaire goes on:
1. What kind of "unification" does Park mean? Confrontation of the
social systems means one side swallowing up the other side and the
latter being swallowed up by the former, the showdown which is bound to
lead to a war. Does she want this?
Park seems to call for the confrontation of the social systems,
mistaking Korea for Germany. This is a day-dream which will never come
true. The confrontation of the social systems precisely means a war.
Does Park really stand for the war?
Does Park have the face to talk about "confidence-building
process" while desperately pursuing the policy for confrontation with fellow countrymen?
When she met a head of state of a certain country, she talked
rubbish that "the north should be made to change" and "if one hundred
attempts to bring it down fail, one hundred and one attempts should be
made to succeed."
Does this mean the "confidence-building process" on the lips of Park?
Confrontation and confidence can never go together. What does she choose between the two?
3. What is the difference between the "north policy" of the present
south Korean regime and Lee Myung Bak's watchword "no nukes, opening and
3 000 dollars"? Does she wish to drive the north-south relations to a
catastrophe just as traitor Lee did?
Park is blustering that she is fully ready to ensure "security of
the social system" in the north and support its economy in cooperation
with the international community once the north dismantles its nukes,
asserting the "issue of the north's nukes is a stumbling block lying in
the way of making arrangements for the era of unification."
Park's claim that the "north should dismantle its nukes first" is nothing different from the above-said watchword of Lee.
To insist on the issue of the "north's nukes" as regards the
inter-Korean relations is little short of denying the process to mend
the relations.
Park should explicitly clarify her stand: whether to persistently
bedevil the north-south relations by following the above-said watchword
or to opt for repairing the relations.
4. Park was reported to have said the "building of a world without
nuclear weapons" should start on the Korean peninsula. Then, is she
willing to cease staging with outside forces north-targeted nuclear war
drills in south Korea with U.S. nuclear war hardware involved?
The DPRK proposed turning the Korean peninsula into a nuclear free zone long ago.
It is none other than the U.S. and south Korean puppet forces that
have staged madcap nuclear war exercises against the north by
introducing more than 1000 nuclear weapons, turning south Korea into the
world's biggest nuclear arsenal in utter disregard of the north's
offer.
Nevertheless, Park is finding fault with the north's nuclear
deterrent for self-defence while keeping mum about the U.S. nukes for
aggression. This is, indeed, sheer sophism.
The U.S. nuclear blackmail and war drills targeting the north are
the root cause of the escalating tensions on the peninsula and the
worsened inter-Korean relations.
Park should now talk what she has to as regards the U.S. nukes and
make a bold decision to put an end to the north-targeted nuclear war
drills staged together with the U.S.
To this end, is she willing to announce the cancellation of Ulji
Freedom Guardian drills scheduled to be staged again between August and
September?
5. Can Park make a decision to pull down the concrete wall built by
the "yusin" regime in the area south of the Military Demarcation Line to
demolish the barrier between the north and the south and abolish
"Security Law"?
The concrete wall dividing the peninsula into two parts is a barrier
of division and confrontation conceived by Park Chung Hee after
visiting the Berlin Wall during his visit to the then West Germany 50
years ago.
The ill-famed "Security Law", an anti-reunification fascist law, is
also a barrier of distrust, social and cultural barrier and a factor of
severance and isolation as it is meant to antagonize compatriots and
freeze the bonds between the north and the south.
If the Korean nation is truly to usher in a new era of peaceful
reunification, it is imperative to pull down the barriers of
confrontation against reunification, the leftover of the outdated Cold
War in the last century, as early as possible.
Can Park make such a decision?
6. Does Park think the "aid to women in pregnancy and malnourished
children" would help de-escalate the tensions and improve the
inter-Korean relations?
The "aid to women in pregnancy and malnourished children" touted by
her is an insult and mockery of the people in the DPRK including
children and women who receive the greatest special benefits as the king
of the country and its flowers thanks to the great politics of love for
the people.
If the inter-Korean relations are to be mended, it is necessary to defuse the acute political and military confrontation.
The DPRK in the historic New Year Address clarified an important principled stand on improving the inter-Korean relations.
Does Park have the willingness to accept the proposal and appeal of
the DPRK, though belatedly, not pretending ignorance of them?
7. It is self-contradiction to talk about "NGO exchange" and
"cooperation" while totally blocking the inter-Korean relations, isn't
it？
Park is persistently clinging to the "May 24 steps" taken by Lee
Myung Bak, a heinous confrontation maniac, to bedevil the inter-Korean
relations. This is as foolish an act as tarnishing her image and binding
her hands and feet by herself. This behavior only gives the impression
that she is just the same confrontation element as Lee Myung Bak.
There is neither reason nor pretext whatsoever for her to keep the long bankrupt "May 24 steps" in force any longer.
Does Park have the willingness to lift the steps?
8. Is it more urgent to turn the hotspots around the five islands in
the West Sea into peace waters than to build a "world peace park" in
the Demilitarized Zone?
The urgent issue along the Military Demarcation Line (MDL) to be
settled by the north and the south in actuality is to turn hotspots
around the five islands in the West Sea into peace waters.
If Park has a "plan" to turn the MDL area into a peace zone, she should pay attention to this issue, first of all.
Does Park have intention to turn the hotspots around the five islands in the West Sea into peace waters?
9. Who is the arch criminal violating the agreement on stopping the
smear campaign and escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula through
political and military provocations?
The south Korean authorities now claim that the DPRK is violating
the agreement made at the north-south high-level contact and slandering
the south. This is just like a guilty party filing the suit first.
It is none other than the south Korean authorities and Park herself who are slinging mud at the DPRK.
Does Park have the face to grumble that the "north is reneging on the promise to halt the smear campaign and provocations"?
10. Does Park have the willingness to respect and implement the
historic July 4 joint statement, June 15 joint declaration and October 4
declaration?
These are the great programmes and landmarks for national reunification common to the nation.
Is Park ready to show her will to respect and implement them, though belatedly?
If Park has a sincere stand to promote the confidence between the
north and the south and open the door for peace and reunification, she
should give correct answers to the solemn questions put by the DPRK on
behalf of the era and the nation in the eyes of all fellow countrymen
and the whole world, pondering over them, questionnaire stressed,
adding:
The prospect for the inter-Korean relations entirely depends on the attitude of Park Geun Hye. -0-
No comments:
Post a Comment