Kim Jong Un Guides Airwomen's Flight Drill
Pyongyang, November 28 (KCNA) -- Kim Jong Un, supreme
commander of the Korean People's Army, guided a flight drill of pursuit
airwomen of the KPA Air and Anti-Air Force.
He went out to an airport's runway to learn about the plan
for solo take-off and landing drill by women pilots of pursuit planes and guide
their flight.
The airwomen fully showed the aviation they acquired in
training.
After the drill, the supreme commander called Jo Kum Hyang
and Rim Sol, women pilots, near to him to congratulate them on their successful
flight.
He is very satisfied and pleased to see the emergence of
excellent pursuit airwomen and their brave flight only in a few months after he
gave an instruction to train them, he said. And he praised them, noting that it
is highly praiseworthy for young girls to singly pilot a pursuit plane, a job
hard even for a man.
In the flight drill they displayed the Korean women's
indomitable will and stamina to the full, he said, adding that this was thanks
not to their strong body and high technique but to their ardent patriotism and
high spirit of defending the country as well as their strong revolutionary
awareness whereby they chose a difficult path of life for themselves.
The birth of the first pursuit airwomen today is an
auspicious event to be celebrated by the whole country, he said, repeatedly
calling all of them laudable daughters of the nation and people and indomitable
women revolutionaries.
Kindly asking the airwomen about their birthplaces and
parents' jobs, he said their parents would be very happy to know about their
growth into pursuit pilots representing the Korean women. And he personally
took pictures of them, saying that the pictures should be sent to their parents
and widely introduced to the whole country.
Then he posed for a picture with them, hoping that they
would intensify flight drill in good health to train themselves into competent
combat airwomen and thus make their worthwhile life honorable in defending the
blue sky of the country as befitting the filial daughters of heroic Korea.
Accompanying him were Hwang Pyong So, Jo Kyong Chol, O Kum
Chol, O Il Jong and Han Kwang Sang.
Spokesman for DPRK Foreign Ministry on Protest in U.S.
against Racial Discrimination
Pyongyang, November 28 (KCNA) -- The spokesman for the
Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea gave the
following answer to a question put by KCNA on Friday as regards the
ever-mounting protests against racial discrimination in the U.S.:
After the Missouri State judicial authorities of the U.S. on
Nov. 24 decided not to indict a white policeman who shot a black young man to
death three months ago, protests against racism took place once again, rapidly
spilling over into at least 170 cities across the U.S., including New York and
Los Angeles. This is a clear proof of the real picture of the U.S. as tundra of
human rights where extreme racial discrimination acts are openly practiced.
As regards the incident, U.S. President Obama let loose a
spate of irresponsible remarks that the U.S. is a country built by law and it
is necessary to accept the decision of the judicial authorities only to spark
off bitterer resentment among the protesters.
Whenever an opportunity presents itself, the U.S.
authorities bluster that the human rights of all people are guaranteed in the
U.S. in a legal and institutional manner and only individual cases contrary to
them occur sometimes.
But such individual human rights abuses are taking place one
after another and have reached a systematic and wide-ranging and extremely
grave phase. The occurrence of nationwide protests at present goes to prove
that the U.S. human rights regime is beset with serious problems.
The U.S. president in his public appearance tried hard to
justify the clear racial discrimination by law, an indication that the U.S.
human rights standard is wrong.
Such human rights standard of the U.S. is censured by the
whole of the international community including its allies.
Great irony is that the U.S. tries to measure other
countries with its wrong human rights standard though it is a typical human
rights abuser.
The DPRK will preserve only its own standard from A to Z
under any circumstances to further protect and promote the human rights of its
people.
Detailed Report on Secret behind Anti-DPRK "Human
Rights Resolution" Released
Pyongyang, November 28 (KCNA) -- The DPRK Association for
Human Rights Studies released the following detailed report on Friday:
A draconian anti-DPRK "resolution" on the human
rights aimed at seriously hurting its dignity was railroaded through the Third
Committee of the 69th UN General Assembly on Nov. 18.
The U.S. and other forces hostile to the DPRK fabricated the
"resolution" peppered with misinformation malignantly abusing its
genuine human rights policy and, not content with this, even asserted that the
DPRK's "human rights issue" should be referred to the International
Criminal Court.
This was the most vivid expression of the U.S. hostile
policy towards the DPRK as it was a hostile action against it, a product of the
U.S. strategy to bring down the socialist system centered on the popular masses
under the pretext of human rights.
Such hostile actions of the U.S. and its followers are
naturally compelling the army and people of the DPRK to launch the toughest
counteraction to cope with them.
Under the present grave situation where the human rights
issue is at the crossroads of sincere cooperation or war, the DPRK Association
for Human Rights Studies releases a detailed report to lay bare the secret
behind such political fraud as the anti-DPRK "human rights
resolution" which has no relevance with the protection and promotion of
genuine human rights and clarify the responsibility for the ensuing
consequences.
1. DPRK's Policy and Efforts for International Cooperation
in the Field of Human Rights
It is the consistent political stand of the DPRK to make
sustained efforts to protect and promote the genuine human rights and
positively promote the international cooperation in this field.
The DPRK government has encouraged and developed the
international exchange and dialogue in the field of human rights since long
ago.
To cite a few examples, a delegation of Amnesty
International visited the DPRK twice in April-May, 1991 and in April-May, 1995.
It met with law-enforcement officials and prisoners and visited reform
institutions and detention rooms, etc.
The reform institution visited by the delegation was just
the same as the one where U.S. citizen Pae Jun Ho served the term of hard labor
from May 2013 to November 2014.
In May-June, 1995, members of the International Association
against Torture visited the DPRK and witnessed its reality.
In July, 1995, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against
Women and her party visited our country and were briefed on the DPRK
government's policy and measures for combating the violence against women and
learned about the reality.
Human rights issue has been included in the agenda of the
regular political dialogue between the DPRK and EU since the DPRK-EU highest
level meeting in May 2001.
In September 2001 the delegation of Parliamentarians from
different political parties of France visited a reform institution and met with
its inmates and officials concerned in the DPRK and learned about its reality.
In May 2002, the head of the division for East Asia at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany visited the DPRK and met those who had
served their terms in prisons to understand the legal system in the DPRK.
EU, however, made a U turn in its stand of dialogue with no
reason all of a sudden in April 2003 when the international cooperation was
making progress in the field of human rights, and sponsored together with Japan
a "resolution" on human rights situation in the DPRK, the first of
its kind, and rammed it through the 59th meeting of the then UN Commission on
Human Rights.
This was a follow-up politically-motivated hostile act of EU
in the wake of the Bush administration's labeling of the DPRK an "axis of
evil," reneging on the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework.
This scuttled the DPRK-EU human rights dialogue. Since then
EU introduced anti-DPRK "human rights resolutions" to UN every year,
blocking any cooperation with EU which has followed one-sided policy of
confrontation.
However, the DPRK has not ceased its efforts to promote the
multilateral cooperation in the field of human rights.
The DPRK government submitted the second report on the
implementation of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights in November, 2003 and took a sincere part in its examination.
It submitted its second report on the implementation of the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in June, 2004 and participated in its
examination.
It presented its first report on the implementation of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in
July, 2005 and took part in its examination.
It submitted its third and fourth reports on the
implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in January, 2009
and participated in their examination.
The DPRK took part in the first-cycle of the Universal
Periodic Review (UPR) under the UN Human Rights Council in December, 2009 and
the second-cycle of UPR in May, 2014.
The DPRK signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities on July 3, 2013.
It signed the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child
Pornography in September 9, 2014 and ratified it in November.
The DPRK government has made these efforts under the serious
situation where the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK has escalated to the
field of human rights.
For example, the U.S. passed "North Korean Human Rights
Act" through its Congress in July, 2004, legalizing its interference in
the internal affairs of the DPRK and its scenario to bring down its social
system under the pretext of "human rights protection".
The keynote of this act is to air 12-hour Korean language
broadcasting a day for the purpose of creating discontent with the DPRK
government among its inhabitants under the signboard of promoting human rights,
democracy and market economy in it, smuggle transistors capable of listening to
its programs, lure its people to defect from their country, emigrate or take
refuge in the U.S. and give financial and material support for doing so, etc.
The U.S. is spending tens of millions of U.S. dollars every
year to implement the "North Korean Human Rights Act" which forces
different international organizations and neighboring countries to get involved
in it.
Even recently when the U.S. and its allies laid bare their
attempt to introduce the "human rights resolution" seriously hurting
the dignity of the DPRK to the UN General Assembly this year, the DPRK
government made ceaseless efforts for dialogue and cooperation in the field of
human rights.
Under the situation where the human rights situation in the
DPRK was seriously misrepresented due to the persistent plots of the hostile
forces, the DPRK Association for Human Rights Studies released a report on
Sept. 13, 2014 for the purpose of clarifying truth and helping the
international community understand it.
The report was warmly welcomed by the international
community and it was registered and circulated as the UN General Assembly, UNSC
and UN Human Rights Council's official documents for making a comprehensive and
objective clarification of the human rights situation in the DPRK where the
people became its master.
The DPRK Foreign Ministry in September 2014 declared its
readiness to have dialogue over the human rights issue with Germany, UK and
other European countries and on Sept. 17 formally expressed its intention to
receive technical assistance if the Office of the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights provides it.
On Oct. 17 the DPRK formally invited the special
representative for human rights of EU to visit the country.
On October 27 the roving ambassador of the Foreign Ministry
of the DPRK met the "Special Rapporteur" on the situation of human
rights in the DPRK in New York for the first time and expressed such good will
and magnanimity as saying that the DPRK would allow his visit to it if he is
sincerely interested in the settlement of the human rights issue.
Some EU countries understood and positively affirmed the
DPRK's broadminded efforts and called upon EU to opt for cooperation with the
DPRK. However, EU under the pressure of the U.S. finally took the road of
confrontation by joining in adopting the "resolution." By doing so,
they closed the door of dialogue including human rights dialogue and exchange
and cooperation by themselves.
2. Falsity and Reactionary Nature of the Anti-DPRK
"Resolution on Human Rights"
The hypocrisy of the "resolution" lies, above all,
in that it is based on the "report" of the Commission of Inquiry (CI)
on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, a collection of lies and
fabrications called "testimonies" made by a handful of
"defectors from north Korea" who fled it after committing crimes here
or were abducted.
For a decade the U.S. has prodded EU and Japan into ratcheting
up pressure on the DPRK in the international arena including the UN and finally
cooked up the Commission of Inquiry on the situation of human rights in the
DPRK.
CI is a plot-breeding body whose political nature is clear
from the background against which it was established.
An anti-DPRK "resolution" on establishing CI was
adopted at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in March, 2013. It was the
time when the DPRK-U.S. standoff was evermore acute due to the sanctions
slapped by the U.S. against the DPRK in the wake of its successful satellite
launch on Dec. 12, 2012 and the third nuclear test on Feb. 12, 2013.
The U.S. launched a new offensive of pressure upon the DPRK
over its human rights issue, aware that it is hard to bring down its social system
by sanctions only.
CI made up of three persons was reported to have worked out
a "report" in which it allegedly made an overall "judgment and
estimation" of the human rights situation of a country and made even a
"recommendation" in a matter of less than a year. This itself raises
a serious problem in view of scientific accuracy and credibility.
The "report" claims that CI members met about 300
"witnesses" in different countries. But among them there was not a
single citizen of the DPRK and none of the members of CI has ever visited our
country.
The countries which members of CI claimed visited were such
countries as the U.S. and Japan hostile to the DPRK and those persons whom they
insisted they met were either citizens of hostile countries or "defectors
from north Korea" under the control of the south Korean authorities.
From the outset CI hostile to the DPRK in its nature had no
intention to visit it. From its inception CI declared that it would conduct its
inquiry mainly on the basis of testimonies made by "defectors from north
Korea" and satellite photos.
Chairman of CI Michael Kirby in an interview with Australian
broadcasting service on May 7, 2013 said there were a series of press reports
about human rights abuses in north Korea but there was a lack of ground to
confirm them.
The "report" failed to publish the names of most
of "defectors from the north" who made testimonies.
CI made such poor excuse that "confidential
interviews" were held to prevent their families from being hurt, a very serious
flaw in a document of an international body.
For example, the "report" claimed on the basis of
"statement" made by "defector from the north" Sin Tong Hyok
that there is a "camp for political prisoners" in the DPRK and
"unethical crimes" are committed there. Why did it not feel
"worry" about Sin's father living in the DPRK at a time when it
opened Sin's name. Maybe Sin is such bete noire who discarded human ethics so
completely as having no worry about his real father that he made a false "testimony"
that his father was dead.
A video clip was posted on website "By Our Nation"
(www.uriminzokkiri.com) to prove false name, career and testimony made by Sin.
Even the author who released a book dealing with Sin's
"Story about defection from the north" admitted that recently Sin
told a lie about the reason for the punishment of his mother.
The book is the fictional novel that "touched"
U.S. Secretary of State Kerry so strongly and sparked off his unusual antipathy
toward the present social system in the DPRK.
Whoever has visited the DPRK even once, a man or woman from
the West, is not ignorant of the human rights situation in the DPRK.
An Italian lawmaker who witnessed the reality of the DPRK in
an interview with Italian Broadcasting Service 24 stated that what Sin Tong
Hyok, defector from north Korea, said at a press conference is a lie to get
some money and the book based on his lie is on sale, declaring he would not buy
such book.
A journalist of Ireland on Oct. 29, 2014 in an article
dedicated to the internet magazine The Diplomat said that Pak Yon Mi, 21-year
old girl who defected from north Korea, spoke about "the serious human
rights situation" in north Korea in tears at the World Youth Summit held
in Dublin early in October and BBC, Al Jazeera, Daily Mail and other media gave
wide publicity to it, but not a few critics claimed what she said was contrary
to the truth, expressing skepticism about her speech.
Swiss businessman Felix Abt who had worked in north Korea
for seven years till 2009 asserted that most of the stories told by those
defectors from the north were not confirmed and clearly hyped or they were
sheer lies.
Denying the claim made by Pak Yon Mi, comparing Dublin Canal
with a river in the area where she had lived, that she saw dead bodies afloat over
the river every morning, Abt refuted her story by saying he had been to north
Korea many times but had never seen dead bodies, showing a picture of children
in north Korea wading in rivers with joy.
Challenging the assertion of Ri Kwang Chol, defector from
the north, who said there is no physically disabled person in north Korea due
to infanticide, Abt recalled that Pyongyang dispatched disabled players to the
Paralymic Games held in Inchon, south Korea.
Michael Bassett, who served the U.S. forces as an expert for
north Korea in the Demilitarized Zone on the Korean Peninsula for years, said
that the story made by Pak Yon Mi, defector from the north, was a sheer lie,
that Pak described the human rights situation in north Korea as a
"massacre", prompted by her intention to create a great sensation and
that such anti-DPRK organizations in south Korea as "Freedom Factory"
were behind her. Bassett, referring to the fact that Pak Yon Mi sent him an
article refuting his story, ridiculed that her English was too perfect though
she was a foreigner.
A researcher of the French Institute for International
Strategic Affairs in an interview with the French paper La Croix on Feb. 19,
2014 said that the UN "human rights report" on north Korea is a
biased and unscientific report and an unscientific document worked out on the
basis of testimonies made by "victims" of the north Korean regime
only without confirmation of information through visits to north Korea. In the
light of the case in which a satellite photo of a nuclear test of north Korea
several years ago was opened to public and proved to be false later, even the
satellite photo showing a "management office" of north Korea is hard
to believe, and a biased "report" based on rumors or public opinion
on the "human rights" of north Korea should not be worked out but
attention should be paid to more objective and scientific information, the
researcher held.
A vice-president of the Party for Free Motherland of Brazil
contributed a statement to the paper Ora Du Pob under the title "A servant
of Obama faked up a Nazi report against the DPRK" on Feb. 19, 2014. It
said:
"Michael Kirby's basic mission is to fabricate evidence
as required by Washington, make persistent and old big lies of monopoly reptile
media meeting the U.S. interests sound plausible, spread lies about the DPRK
and participate in the international cooperation steered by the U.S. against
the DPRK.
Michael Kirby had never visited Pyongyang, met and talked
with representatives of the DPRK government. Following without any
consideration the theory of the Nazis that if one repeats lies many times,
everybody will believe in them, he was only invited many times to visit Seoul
where all structures were made to provide 'evidence' necessary for working out
the false 'UN report' having 372 pages through interview with persons in Seoul
and several 'defectors from the north'."
The reactionary nature of the present "resolution"
lies in that it serves as a tool for inciting confrontation, not cooperation,
and a war, not peace.
The above-said "resolution" is designed to secure
a justification for armed intervention by branding the DPRK as a "tundra
of human rights" in the arena of the UN.
History clearly remembers the Yugoslav war which the U.S.
ignited under the pretext of "protection of human rights and
minority" in 1999.
The gravity of the "resolution" lies in that a
dangerous precedent is made to politicize and internationalize the human rights
issue of an individual country and use it for overthrowing the social system of
that country.
3. The EU bereft of "independence"
The history of the UN knows no such document as the
"report of the CI" on the situation of human rights in the DPRK which
was fabricated in clumsy and hasty manner.
The EU, too, must be aware of the fact that the
"report" has a lot of flaws and requires at least a verification.
The DPRK offered an opportunity for the verification under
the situation where there are two conflicting reports thanks to the publication
of the DPRK Association for Human Rights Studies' report fully reflecting the
DPRK's policy on human rights, human rights regime and the reality of the
people's enjoyment of human rights.
This was the reason why we consented to the visit of the UN
"Special Rapporteur" on the situation of human rights in the DPRK and
the special representative for human rights of EU and proposed the resumption
of the human rights dialogue with EU on our initiative.
But EU said that it discussed the matter within it but a
country in the EU opposed it and decided to pass the resolution because of
opposition from the U.S. and Japan outside EU and proposed dialogue later.
Those countries opposed it were precisely the ones that have
not recognized the state sovereignty of the DPRK where the people are fully
guaranteed human rights.
The UN "special rapporteur" on the situation of
human rights in the DPRK said at the contact with the DPRK on October 27, 2014
that he would propose EU to delete the issue of the International Criminal
Court (ICC) from the "resolution" but a few days later he made a U
turn in his stand and insisted that the DPRK's "human rights issue"
should be referred to the ICC and his visit to the DPRK be realized.
This is little short of having negotiations with the DPRK
while leveling a gun at it.
As shown by the 20 odd-year-long history of the course of
dealing with the nuclear issue, it is the stand of the DPRK never to have any
dialogue under pressure but to recognize and approach the dialogue based on
equality only.
The behavior shown by EU this time makes us think once again
of the "independence" oft-repeated by it.
Some years ago, the prime minister of a member state of EU
earned an ill-fame as a poodle of the U.S. but today EU has itself created a
strong impression that it is just a poodle of the U.S.
How can proper dialogue and negotiations be held with a
party bereft of reason and its own principle?
Witnessing the shape of EU bereft of
"independence," we cannot but question whether the DPRK's relations
with EU have any meaning.
4. Extreme Partiality of UN
The course of the forcible passage of the
"resolution" clearly proved that the UN has turned into a theatre of
rampage, where everything is decided by the high-handed and arbitrary practices
and dollar bag of the U.S., quite contrary to the principle of equal
sovereignty specified in its Charter, and the fate of the individual countries
might be adversely affected in a moment if they are weak.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK, with this
year's UN General Assembly at hand, had contacts and dialogue on human rights
issue with more than 150 UN member states, except for some die-hard hostile
countries.
Most of the member states the DPRK got in touch with were
skeptical about the "CI report" and admitted that the document was
politicized. While doing so, not a few countries noted that they cannot but
take the stand of abstaining from or not participating in the voting for
"the resolution" as the U.S., Japan and others threatened them to
suspend their economic aid and loan while putting so strong political pressure
on them. They asked the DPRK side to regard this as their support and
solidarity with the DPRK.
There were many such countries in Asia and Africa, in
particular.
Who is opposed to having dialogue on human rights, in
actuality, was brought to light during the recent UN General Assembly.
On Sept. 23 the U.S. announced that "high-level event
on human rights of north Korea" would be held in New York on sidelines of
the 69th UN General Assembly.
Prompted by the desire to set right the wrong opinion and
view on the "human rights issue" in the DPRK and help its
participants know truth, the DPRK expressed its will to participate in the
meeting in the capacity of the party concerned and proposed this to the U.S.
side.
The U.S. side said it would give an answer later, after
thinking about it for a long while, but refused the DPRK side's participation
in the meeting under the absurd pretext that it was "not appropriate"
at a time when the meeting was imminent.
By origin, it is a practice and procedural regulation to
invite the party concerned with the agenda item to be discussed at UN meetings
and all other international meetings.
But it was evident that the U.S., holding a meeting
concerned with the DPRK only, had no willingness to agree with the participation
of the DPRK, the party concerned, or held the meeting in the backlane in a bid
to hatch a plot from the outset.
Are such country and its servants entitled to talk about
human rights dialogue ?
Not a few countries asked for understanding that they voted
for the "resolution" not because they were concerned for the human
rights issue but because the U.S. and Japan threatened them to halt economic
aid. This fully revealed what extent the U.S. highhanded and arbitrary
practices have reached in the UN.
As a Western personage said, the UN is now becoming an arena
where 99 percent of its member nations sacrifice themselves for one percent of
its membership.
We do not want anyone's "recognition" as regards
the human rights issue and, moreover, do not feel the need to read the face of
others at all.
What our people like and what conforms with their
requirements and interests is precisely our human rights standards.
The recent farce orchestrated at the UN is a shameless
political chicanery to put down justice with injustice and conceal truth with
lies and the height of brazenfaced burlesque to deceive the world people with
intrigues and fabrications.
The U.S. and its followers are trying hard to bring down the
man-centred socialist system chosen by the Korean people, the cradle which they
regard dearer than their own lives. This is lashing them into great fury.
Growing stronger are the voices calling for dealing
merciless sledge-hammer blows at those who hurt even the dignity of the supreme
leadership of the DPRK fully representing its people, which cannot be bartered
for anything.
The DPRK will make every possible effort to shatter all
"human rights" rackets kicked up by the U.S. and other hostile forces
and defend the socialist system where the people are masters and their genuine
human rights are guaranteed on the highest level.
KCNA Commentary Blasts Anti-DPRK "Human Rights
Resolution" Fabricated by U.S. and Its Followers
Pyongyang, November 28 (KCNA) -- An anti-DPRK "human
rights resolution" was rammed through the Third Committee of the 69th UN
General Assembly on Nov. 18 by the U.S. and other hostile forces.
Lurking behind this is their sinister purpose to paint the
DPRK as "tundra of human rights" at the UN and thus invent a pretext
for launching armed intervention in it.
It is a trite method employed by the U.S. to commit
aggression and realize its domination to strike the countries courting its
displeasure by force of arms, foment their internal conflicts and put them
under its control under the pretext of "human rights" and
"democracy."
The wars against Grenada, Panama and Yugoslavia in the last
century and the Iraq war in the present century were all fought by the U.S.
under the pretext of "protecting human rights."
As seen above, the "human rights" noisily trumpeted
about by the U.S. have always been used as a lever for committing massacre and
war.
Then, can this outrageous method work on the DPRK?
The DPRK deems its sovereignty dearer than its existence.
When the U.S. tried to launch military aggression under the
pretext of the nuclear issue as part of its "nuclear racket" against
the DPRK, the latter unhesitatingly fought against it and firmly defended the
sovereignty of the country and nation. The DPRK made such thunder as just
nuclear test to warn the U.S. seized with the nuke all-powerful theory, failing
to understand the former's will to devotedly defend its sovereignty. By doing
so, it formally notified Washington of the fact that its policy of nuclear
blackmail has become a white elephant.
In a final analysis, the "human rights" racket is
no more than the last-ditch effort of those who are tight-cornered. This simply
reminds one of a drowning man catching even a straw, finding it hard to stifle
the DPRK with nukes.
Human rights precisely mean national sovereignty.
The "human rights" racket kicked up by the U.S.
and other hostile forces to dare defame even the dignity of the supreme
leadership of the DPRK, the destiny of its service personnel and people, not
content with infringing upon its sovereignty, cannot be construed otherwise
than the most vivid expression of their hostile acts against the DPRK.
The service personnel and people of the DPRK have already
declared that they would launch the toughest counteractions against the U.S.,
Japan, the south Korean puppet group and other hostile forces.
The counteractions will prove to be the most sacred and
merciless struggle for defending the sovereignty.
The chief culprit of the "human rights" racket and
those involved in it will have to regret for their thrice-cursed crimes forever
No comments:
Post a Comment