FM SPOKESMAN SLAMS U.S. FOR DELIBERATELY LINKING NEGOTIATIONS WITH
IRAN OVER NUCLEAR ISSUE WITH DPRK
Pyongyang,
July 21 (KCNA) --A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK Tuesday gave
the following answer to the question put by KCNA as regards the fact that the
U.S. is deliberately linking the conclusion of the agreement on the nuclear
issue of Iran with the DPRK:
The
U.S. is talking this and that over the nuclear issue of the DPRK in the wake of
the conclusion of the agreement on the nuclear issue of Iran.
A
spokesperson of the U.S. Department of State said on July 14 that
"Washington is ready for dialogue with Pyongyang if discussion is made on
the nuclear issue of north Korea and it helps put it on a concrete and
full-fledge stage of nuclear disarmament."
A
U.S. under secretary of State uttered on July 16 that it was his hope thatthe
conclusion of the agreement with Iran would help the DPRK rethink of its
nuclear issue.
Iran's
nuclear agreement is the achievement made by its protracted efforts to have its
independent right to nuclear activities recognized and sanctions lifted.
But
the situation of the DPRK is quite different from it.
The
DPRK is the nuclear weapons state both in name and reality and it has interests
as a nuclear weapons state.
The
DPRK is not interested at all in the dialogue to discuss the issue of making it
freeze or dismantle its nukes unilaterally first.
The
nuclear deterrence of the DPRK is not a plaything to be put on the negotiating
table as it is the essential means to protect its sovereignty and vital rights
from the U.S. nuclear threat and hostile policy which have lasted for more than
half a century.
It
is illogical to compare Iran's nuclear agreement with the situation of the DPRK
which is exposed to constant provocative military hostile acts and the biggest
nuclear threat of the U.S. including its ceaseless large-scale joint military
exercises.
The
DPRK remains unchanged in the mission of its nuclear force as long as the U.S.
continues pursuing its hostile policy toward the former.
No comments:
Post a Comment