Does anyone have any significant info on this group. I got on their
list somehow and have been receiving their messages.
Re: [stalinskaya] DPRK On Relations With US
Date:
Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:54:40 +0800
From:
KloMcKinsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization:
none
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Rebel wrote:STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
It is good to see the DPRK explaining and defending its positions as that certainly enables its allies to justify and disseminate its views and policies more easily.
Spokesman for DPRK Foreign Ministry on new U.S. administration's policy
towards DPRK~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pyongyang, February 22 (KCNA) -- A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry
of the DPRK Wednesday released a statement as regards the new U.S.
administration's policy towards the DPRK. The statement says:
There are a variety of opinions in the U.S. over the issue of its policy
towards the DPRK, which draw its serious attention.
Foreign and national security policy team of the new U.S. administration
are increasingly assertive for a "hardline stance" towards Pyongyang,
claiming that the former Clinton administration only offered things to the
north, tempted by it, the new administration would pursue an "engagement
policy" different from that of the Clinton administration and it would make
"phased access" and "conditional and strict reciprocity."
This once again disclosed the U.S. aggressive and brigandish true
intention to stop the DPRK-U.S. relations from developing in the direction
of reconciliation, cooperation and improved ties in keeping with the present
international trend towards peace and stability and break the DPRK's will
with "strength." this compels us to heighten vigilance.
If this is an official stand of the new U.S. administration towards the
DPRK, this can not but draw a serious attention.
Both the DPRK and the U.S. agreed to remove the root cause of
long-standing distrust, confrontation and misunderstanding and normalize
relations in the Geneva DPRK-U.S. agreed framework and the New York
DPRK-U.S. joint communique, etc. Accordingly, both sides are committed to
terminate the hostile relations, build confidence and remove their
apprehension.
The "conditional reciprocity" and "phased access" touted by the U.S.,
therefore, mean that it would fulfil its commitments only when the DPRK
moves first.
In other words, it wants the DPRK to totally disarm itself first. The
U.S. is seriously mistaken if it thinks that Pyongyang will accept its
demand.
It is the consistent stand of the DPRK that it will be able to clear the
U.S. of its worries over its security only when it assures the DPRK that
Washington does not threaten the DPRK's security by taking substantial
measures to terminate the hostile relations.
As for the "reciprocity" asserted by the U.S. it has never offered
anything to the DPRK gratis but caused only losses to it.
The DPRK-U.S. agreed framework calls for simultaneous actions on the
part of the two sides and the DPRK has so far kept its nuclear power
facilities frozen according to it.
However, the U.S. has not sincerely implemented its commitments under
the agreed framework, causing huge losses to the DPRK.
The LWR project which had been scheduled to be completed by 2003 is
unlikely to become a reality and the U.S. has not yet set out even a
timetable for the offer of heavy oil for a new fiscal year that began from
October 22 last year.
The U.S. is obliged to compensate for the DPRK's loss of electricity
caused by the delayed LWR project.
If it does not honestly implement the agreed framework as today, there
is no need for us to be bound to it any longer.
We cannot but consider the existence of the KEDO as meaningless under
the present situation where no one can tell when the lwr project will be
completed.
The United States must clearly know that we cannot wait for its
completion for an indefinite period.
The U.S. insisted on establishing the NMD alledgedly to cope with the
"missile threat" from the DPRK, calling it a "rogue state", not away from
its outdated way of thinking, though humankind greeted the new century of
genuine peace after putting an end to the 20th century marked with war,
confrontation and blood. This is a brigandish logic.
We advanced such reasonable proposals as declaring a moratorium on the
test-fire of long-range missiles while the missile negotiations are under
way because the U.S. asserted that our missiles for self-defence pose a
threat to it.
We made to the U.S. side a series of reasonable proposals that we might
accept a substitute satellite launch if our satellite launch posed a threat
to the U.S. security, though it is no more than scientific and technological
development merely for a peaceful purpose and that we might stop the missile
export if the relevant compensation is made in hard currency because the
missile export is aimed to earn foreign currency. But the new U.S.
administration is not poised to seriously study the issue.
As there is no agreement between the DPRK and the U.S., we will not be
bound to our pledge related to the missile issue raised during the previous
U.S. administration.
We decided not to launch long-range missiles while the missile
negotiations are under way but we will not indefinitely maintain this
moratorium.
We will not remain a passive onlooker to the things which only hamstring
our scientific and technological development.
We are always ready for all events.
_________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
