The following is the report by North Korea's state news agency, KCNA, on the keynote speeches made by delegates at six-nation talks in Beijing on North Korea's nuclear programme.
Assistant State Secretary James Kelly, head of the US delegation, said that the US' immediate purpose is to ensure that the North Korean nuclear programme is eliminated in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.
He added that the US can discuss security assurances and political and
economic benefits only when the DPRK [ North Korea] eliminates its nuclear weapons programme completely, verifiably and irreversibly.
We can dismantle our nuclear programme if the US makes a switch over in its hostile policy towards us and does not pose any threat to us
Noting that the US would not pursue bilateral talks with the DPRK for the solution to the nuclear issue, he said: Once the DPRK's nuclear weapons programme is eliminated, the US is prepared to start bilateral negotiations on a series of issues, including missiles, conventional weapons, counterfeiting and drug smuggling, terrorism, human rights and abduction. That would be aimed to normalise the bilateral relations.
The conclusion of any non-aggression treaty is neither appropriate nor necessary. The US is, therefore, not interested in it. Once the DPRK's verifiable and irreversible abandonment of the nuclear weapons programme is confirmed, the US would be ready to discuss security concerns with other countries at the next talks.
North Korea's speech
Kim Yong-il, vice-minister of foreign affairs, who is leading the DPRK delegation to the six-way talks on the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US, in his keynote speech made clear the principled stand on the settlement of the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US.
He said: The denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula is the general
goal of the DPRK. It is not our goal to have nuclear weapons. The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula was our initiative and it is our consistent stand and the desire of all Koreans to realise it. The US is, however, standing in its way.
If the nuclear issue between the two countries is to be peacefully settled through dialogue, the US should make a radical switchover in its policy towards the DPRK. This is a master key to and a precondition for the settlement of the nuclear issue.
The Bush administration openly disclosed its attempt to use nuclear weapons after listing the DPRK as part of "an axis of evil" and a target of a "pre-emptive nuclear attack". This prompted us to judge that the Bush administration is going to stifle our system by force and decide to build a
strong deterrent force to cope with it.
The United States opposed the package solution and the principle of simultaneous actions
Hence, we determined to possess that force. Our deterrent force is not aimed to attack somebody without any proper reason. It is a means for self-defence to protect our sovereignty.
We can dismantle our nuclear programme if the US makes a switchover in its hostile policy towards us and does not pose any threat to us.
The benchmark for our judgement that the US no longer antagonises us will be provided only when a non-aggression treaty is concluded between the DPRK and the US, diplomatic relations opened between them and the US does not obstruct our economic dealing with other countries.
The non-aggression treaty called for by us is by no means to demand "security assurances", but to have a non-aggression treaty with legal biding force whereby both signatories commit themselves to non-aggression.
The US can not shirk its responsibility for having suspended the implementation of the agreed framework. We have fully fulfilled our
commitment to freeze our nuclear facility since the adoption of the agreed framework.
Kelly who came to the DPRK as a special envoy of President Bush in October 2002, failing to present any specific "evidence", groundlessly pulled us up, using coercive words and behaving rudely, ignoring the oriental custom.
He claimed that we have secretly pushed forward an enriched uranium programme in breach of the agreed framework.
In this regard we made it clear that we have no secret nuclear programme but we are entitled to have weapons more powerful than those based on enriched uranium.
We have powerful weapons, including single-hearted unity. After Kelly's Pyongyang visit, the US misled the public opinion, saying that we admitted to the secret nuclear programme and unilaterally stopped the supply of heavy fuel oil from November 2002.
The DPRK-US agreed framework concluded in October 1994 was
thus nullified due to the US unilateral refusal to fulfil its commitments.
The DPRK has abided by the principle that the measures for settling the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US should be implemented by simultaneous actions. These actions provide a realistic way of realising the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.
Any opposition to the simultaneous actions would mean opposing the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula and, furthermore, cannot be construed otherwise than a revelation of an intention to disarm the DPRK and swallow it up.
"Early inspection" can never be accepted in any case, he said, setting out our proposal for a package solution to the nuclear issue and the order of simultaneous actions.
He further said: For a package solution, the US should conclude a non-aggression treaty with the DPRK, establish diplomatic relations with it and guarantee the economic cooperation between the DPRK and Japan and between the North and the South of Korea.
The DPRK reclarified its consistent stand that its goal is the denuclearisation and the guarantee of peace and security on the Korean peninsula
And it should also compensate for the loss of electricity caused by the delayed provision of light water reactors and complete their construction.
For this, the DPRK should not make nuclear weapons and allow
the nuclear inspection, finally dismantle its nuclear facility, put on ice the missile test-fire and stop its export.
According to the order of simultaneous actions, the US should resume the supply of heavy fuel oil, sharply increase the humanitarian food aid while the DPRK should declare its will to scrap its nuclear programme.
According to this order, we will allow the refreeze of our nuclear facility and nuclear substance and monitoring and inspection of them from the time the US has concluded a non-aggression treaty with the DPRK and compensated for the loss of electricity.
We will settle the missile issue when diplomatic relations are opened between the DPRK and the US and between the DPRK and Japan.
And we will dismantle our nuclear facility from the time the
LWRs (light water reactors) are completed.
Clarifying the principled stand of the DPRK on finding a solution to the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US, our delegation would like to advance the following proposal prompted by the desire to make the six-way talks fruitful.
First, the DPRK and the US should make clear their will to clear up bilateral concerns. The DPRK will clarify its will to dismantle its nuclear programme if the US makes clear its will to give up its hostile policy towards the DPRK.
Second, all the countries participating in the six-way talks should agree on the principle to implement the measures for solving the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US through simultaneous actions.
If our reasonable proposal is turned aside at the talks, we will judge that the US does not intend to give up its attempt to stifle the DPRK by force at an appropriate time while persistently insisting the DPRK "scrap its nuclear
programme first" to waste time.
In this case the DPRK cannot dismantle its nuclear deterrent force but will have no option but to increase it. Whether the nuclear issue will be settled or not depends on the US attitude.
Chinese, Russian, South Korean and Japanese sides made
keynote remarks at the talks.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi, head of the Chinese delegation, said the nuclear issue should be solved peacefully, adding that the conclusion of a non-aggression treaty, peaceful co-existence and normalisation of relations with the US and the establishment of economic and trade
relations with other countries proposed by the DPRK are a
positive, constructive, just and rational offer.
He noted that the conclusion of the non-aggression treaty should be
settled through the DPRK-US direct talks and the issues of denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula and security concerns raised by the DPRK should be solved simultaneously.
It is important to achieve durable peace on the Korean peninsula by establishing a peace mechanism on the peninsula with the peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue as a momentum, and the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula is favourable for protecting the fundamental interests of
the North and the South of Korea and the stable situation in Northeast Asia, he said.
Russia, South Korea and Japan
Russian Vice Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov, head of the Russian delegation, said an emergency measure is needed to defuse the tensions on the Korean peninsula, noting that it is important to work out a "road map" by incorporating each other's measures.
He noted that Russia is interested in ensuring denuclearisation and durable peace on the Korean peninsula and maintaining reliable security for all the
countries in the region and developing the mutually beneficial co-operation.
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of South Korea
Lee Soo-hyuck, head of the South Korean delegation, set out
the "simultaneous action order", promising to sincerely implement the 15 June North-South joint declaration and continue the economic aid to the DPRK on the basis of compatriotism and humanitarianism and noting the nuclear
issue should be comprehensively solved.
Department Director of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mitoji Yabunaka, head of the Japanese delegation, noted that it is necessary to solve the missile and abduction issues in a comprehensive way together with the nuclear issue.
Through the keynote remarks made by each delegation at the six-way talks one may comment on the stance of each country as follows:
The DPRK reclarified its consistent stand that its goal is the denuclearisation and the guarantee of peace and security on the Korean peninsula and comprehensively set out a clear orientation and specific ways for the peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue including the principle of simultaneous
The DPRK set the goal of dropping its nuclear programme from the time the US abandons its hostile policy towards the DPRK and advanced a package solution and simultaneous action order, calling for implementing all the measures to attain the goal on a phased basis on the principle of simultaneous actions.
China, Russia and South Korea also referred to the package solution and the way of simultaneous actions, urging the peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue.
Japan took the attitude to use the six-way talks for meeting its political interests, focusing on the abduction issue rather than the settlement of the nuclear issue.
The prevailing tone of the keynote remarks is that it is imperative to achieve denuclearisation and peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, peacefully solve the nuclear issue and to this end give a package solution to all
issues of concerns between the DPRK and the US on a phased basis on the principle of simultaneous actions.
But regrettably, the United States flatly refused such views. The United States opposed the package solution and the principle of simultaneous actions instead of expressing its will to make a practical switch over in its policy.
It is the US stand that only when the DPRK scraps its nuclear programme first the US can discuss issues of security assurances and economic aid and the issues of missile, conventional weapons, human rights and other issues
should be discussed if the DPRK wants to normalise the relations with the US even after it completely abandons its nuclear programme.
The United States said the next talks can take place only
when the DPRK expresses its intention to scrap its nuclear
In the final analysis, the US would move only after the DPRK
is completely disarmed.
It is against common sense to raise such a demand to its counterpart at the talks when the DPRK and the US are standing in confrontation with each other with arms and this raises a serious question as to its true intention.
The DPRK cannot but interpret this otherwise than a US intention to invade it after it is disarmed. It is a brigandish-like demand beyond the tolerance limit.
It has become clearer through the six-way talks that the United States is forcing the DPRK to disarm, while persistently pursuing its hostile policy towards the DPRK.
In fact, the DPRK hoped that an agreement was reached between them at the talks whereby the DPRK could be able to express its will to scrap its nuclear programme in return for the US manifestation of its will to make a policy
switchover at least and the hard-won dialogue would go on.
As such expectation was betrayed, it is not difficult to guess how the DPRK will react to it. By flatly refusing to exchange even words expressing the will to make policy switch over, the United States put the prospect of the next
talks at peril.