What Do Ill-boding Remarks from U.S. Signify

The following is the full text of an article written by Kim Chol Myong on Tuesday whose title is “What do ill-boding remarks from the U.S. signify”.

After the Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK met the U.S. State Secretary Pompeo on a visit to Pyongyang, the DPRK-U.S. relations that had been on a stalemate began to roll again.

Speaking to the reporters after his Pyongyang visit, Pompeo said that his visit was quite good and that the DPRK and the U.S. had productive dialogue, noting with satisfaction that an important advance was made this time, too, and crucial progress would continue to be made.

Even heard from the White House are comments that Pompeo had very good meeting in the DPRK and it was advance beyond excellence and the current tempo of the DPRK-U.S. negotiations is remarkably fast.

Even rung out from south Korea and the international community are such voices of an optimistic prospect that one cannot but be skeptical about the truthfulness of images of Chairman Kim Jong Un and Pompeo with bright smiles on their faces and that it is supposed that candid discussion of the DPRK’s measure and the U.S. corresponding measures was made and this will have very positive impact on the situation of the Korean peninsula.

But ill-boding remarks are heard from the U.S. now as if to jeer at such positive observation of the public, shocking the world.

Openly heard from the midterm election campaigns and press conferences are such calls that sanctions must continue until denuclearization is realized and that something must be taken out more from the DPRK in order to lift sanctions.

The U.S. State Department just repeats the stereotyped words that “defusing sanctions on the DPRK is possible only after denuclearization”, disallowing even the application for visit to the DPRK for humanitarian projects which had been exceptionally approved in the past and putting pressure on the south Korean authorities in every possible manner not to advance the south-north relations ahead of the denuclearization.

Even the White House made such threatening words that the north and the south cannot go ahead with the implementation of the historic joint declaration “without an approval by the U.S.”, enraging not only south Koreans but all other Koreans.

Every sound made in the world is bound to leave echo.

So offending us, however, are the coarse words heard from the U.S. even before the sound of cheers made in Pyongyang with smiles died out.

Such coarse words could have been made to flatter the anti-DPRK hard-liners in order to create favorable political environment before the midterm election in November.

But they should be able to think that what they say are also heard in the DPRK even though they say in the U.S. and be able to think and speak from the position of the dialogue partner.

The U.S., which is quite well aware that there was very excellent conversation in which each other’s stands were fully understood and views were exchanged during Pompeo’s visit to Pyongyang, is responding to good faith with evil. No wonder, this stuns the world.

In our presence, it holds out its hand asking for friendship but behind the scene it is making irrelevant remarks. It is something quite far away from common sense, to say nothing of diplomatic practices.

In fact, the U.S. intent to keep on sanctions means that it would not stop hostile policy. This, in other words, means that it would stop improving relations.

A U.S. high-ranking official in charge of the DPRK-U.S. negotiations was so brazen as to spit out a few days ago that the DPRK should not consider the U.S. keeping sanctions and maintaining watching attitude as an expression of hostility toward it.

Is the barbarous strangling aimed at stamping out the right to existence and the right to living of the Korean people an expression of good faith and friendship, if not that of hostility?

Mankind defined encroachment upon the sovereignty and economic independence of other countries, economic pressure measures threatening the base of the economic lifeline of a country and economic blockade against other countries as an act of aggression in the “Convention for the Definition of Aggression” which was adopted and took effect in the 1930s.

Hostile policy and reciprocity cannot go together.

If the U.S. intends to be stubborn in its sanctions, which means to continue to pursue hostile policy, what is the Singapore Joint Statement which promised to end the extreme hostile relations between the DPRK and the U.S. and to open up new future and what the U.S. president means by “big progress” which he bragged.

Does it mean that the U.S. will dare to apply to the DPRK an American-style diplomatic formula designed to “hold a big stick to talk to a dialogue partner”? It would be awkward for the U.S. with two faces of Janus to look the DPRK in its honest eyes and, therefore, it would be comfortable for it to approach the DPRK-U.S. negotiations with cool-headed attitude.

What should be emphasized once again is that it is a full contradiction and a faulty expression for the U.S. to continue to call for maintaining sanctions and pressure on the DPRK, despite the latter’s proactive initiatives for denuclearization.

Quite long period has passed since the DPRK stopped nuclear tests and inter-continental ballistic rocket launches and it would, therefore, be a natural reasoning for “sanctions measures” taken on those pretexts to be lifted accordingly.

What matters is that the U.S. president himself, whenever opportunities presented themselves, bragged that the DPRK does not conduct nuclear tests and ballistic missile launch tests and that he saved millions of lives, but that is all of how the U.S. responses to the goodwill measures taken by the DPRK.

No wonder, big powers including China and Russia contend that the processes for denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and establishment of peace regime should be made in a phased and simultaneous way and be accompanied by corresponding actions by countries concerned.

It is a common practice to offer something for what is given, but the U.S. which does not know offering after being given is natural to be jeered by the world as “America which does not even belch after swallowing a whole chicken”.

What becomes clearer with passing time is the ulterior purpose sought by the U.S. through sanctions.

It is an undeniable reality that denuclearization, sanctions and the like are misused as tools for pursuing party interests and strategies of the political forces within the U.S., not intended to solve bottleneck problems between the DPRK and the U.S. to even a certain extent.

The reason is clear. If it is sincerely respecting the spirit of the Singapore DPRK-U.S. Joint Statement and hoping for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, it cannot be so unreasonable and inefficient in handling the DPRK-U.S. relations as now.

The hard-liners do not approach the issue of the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula from the viewpoint for peace of humankind but use it as a tool for attacking the diplomatic policy of the administration, whereas the Trump administration has not gotten rid of the one-sided policy of pressure on the DPRK while reading the faces of the hard-liners. No wonder, the fundamental interests of the DPRK-U.S. relations are thus deeply mired in an evil cycle only to suffer from it. It is also a well-known fact that sanctions are being misused as a “rope” for keeping many countries around the world tied within the sphere of its influence while being used as a tool for the U.S. domestic policy.

When viewed in this context, it is clear why the U.S. insists with its ears closed that it would keep sanctions until a clear signal is heard from someone while saying with its eyes closed that no movement for denuclearization can be seen from the DPRK.

The U.S. politicians must clearly understand that the DPRK-U.S. relations and the world peace are mocked and insulted, as long as the sanctions – for which there are no more pretext and value – are continuously being misused by the political forces within the U.S. for seeking their interests.

Our people say that the U.S. is a country which only knows receiving, not giving, and it is so narrow-minded as a superpower.

It is hard to guess till when and up to where the big U.S. is going to dangle itself in the unilateral good faith and magnanimity of the DPRK.

The U.S. must lend an ear to the advice of the international community which strongly urges the U.S. to stop the sanctions on the DPRK, saying that no problem can be solved by means of sanctions and pressure.

Unless the U.S. takes flexible and realistic measures, away from the stiffened way of thinking of the past, “sanctions” would rather become a chain shackling the U.S. itself advancing toward the world and future before shackling others. Counting on the U.S., the DPRK made a promise with it to end the hostile relations of over 70 years and to make joint efforts for peace in the Korean peninsula and the world, and has taken a series of goodwill measures.

If the U.S. does not take any trustworthy measures for clearing up the concerns of the DPRK – which the U.S. is quite well aware of – the DPRK-U.S. relations would surely become that much far apart and the settlement of the nuclear issue of the Korean peninsula would be that much far away. Such U.S. acts of playing a double game and only forcing the unilateral demand on the DPRK as now would be the one little short of destroying the tower which the top leaders of the two countries have built with painstaking efforts by gaining the miraculous opportunity.

It is difficult to advance the train of DPRK-U.S. negotiations even an inch with an obstacle of sanctions kept on the rail, however loud its whistle is.

A new page of the DPRK-U.S. relations can be written only with a soft brush, not with a rough stick.