|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation North Korea Nuclear Crisis: Selected Statements, October 25-27
I. APEC Leaders' Statement, October 27Statement on North Korea issued by leaders attending the meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) organisation, Los Cabos, Mexico, October 27. Note: the 21 member economies of APEC are - Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Thailand, United States, Vietnam. StatementWe note the potential for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to benefit economically from the greater participation as a member of the Asia-Pacific community. Such a prospect will rest upon a nuclear weapons-free status on the Korean peninsula. We reiterate our continued support for the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We uphold that a nuclear weapons-free Korean peninsula is important to the peace and stability of the peninsula and northeast Asia, and is also in the interests of all members of the region. We call upon the DPRK to visibly honor its commitment to give up nuclear weapons programs and reaffirm our commitment to ensure a peaceful resolution of this issue. Source: Text of APEC's N. Korea Statement, Associated Press, October 27. II. US-Japan-South Korea Statement, October 26'Joint US-Japan-ROK Trilateral Statement', The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, October 26; issued during the meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) organisation, Los Cabos, Mexico. Today President George W. Bush, President Kim Dae-Jung, and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi met to reaffirm their commitment to a peaceful Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons. The three leaders agreed that North Korea's program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons is a violation of the Agreed Framework, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, North Korea's IAEA safeguards agreement, and the South-North Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The three leaders called upon North Korea to dismantle this program in a prompt and verifiable manner and to come into full compliance with all its international commitments in conformity with North Korea's recent commitment in the Japan-North Korea Pyongyang Declaration. In this context, the three leaders agreed to continue close coordination. The three leaders stressed their commitment to resolve this matter peacefully in close consultation trilaterally and with other concerned nations around the globe. The three leaders agreed that South-North dialogue and the opening of Japan-DPRK normalization talks can serve as important channels to call upon the North to respond quickly and convincingly to the international communities' demands for a denuclearized Korean peninsula. President Kim briefed that during the recent South-North Ministerial Meeting held in Pyongyang, the South strongly urged North Korea to take immediate action for a prompt and peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue. Prime Minister Koizumi reiterated that Japan-DPRK normalization should promote not only bilateral relations with North Korea, but also contribute to peace and stability of the region. In this regard, Prime Minister Koizumi stressed that Japan-North Korea normalization talks would not be concluded without full compliance with the Pyongyang Declaration between Japan and North Korea, in particular with regard to the security issues, including the nuclear issue, and abduction issues. President Bush reiterated his February statement in South Korea that the United States has no intention of invading North Korea as well as the fact that he had been prepared to pursue a bold approach to transforming US-DPRK relations. The three leaders noted the potential for North Korea to benefit from greater participation as a member of the international community. However, the three leaders agreed that North Korea's relations with the international community now rest on North Korea's prompt and visible actions to dismantle its program to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. With a view to contributing to regional as well as international peace and stability, the three leaders reaffirmed that continued close consultations and trilateral coordination remain vital to the success of their efforts towards North Korea. III. North Korean Foreign Ministry Statement, October 25North Korean Foreign Ministry Statement, Pyongyang, October 25. New dramatic changes have taken place in the situation on the Korean Peninsula and the rest of Northeast Asia in the new century. Inter-Korean relations and the DPRK's relations with Russia, China and Japan have entered a new important phase and bold measures have been taken to reconnect inter-Korean railroads which have remained cut for over half a century, settle the past with Japan and do away with the leftovers of the last century. The DPRK has taken a series of new steps in economic management and adopted one measure after another to reenergize the economy, including the establishment of a special economic region, in conformity with the changed situation and specific conditions of the country. These developments practically contribute to peace in Asia and the rest of the world. Almost all the countries except for the United States, therefore, welcomed and hailed them, a great encouragement to the DPRK. It was against this backdrop that the DPRK recently received a special envoy of the US President in the hope that this might help fundamentally solve the hostile relations with the US and settle outstanding issues on an equal footing. Regretfully, the Pyongyang visit of the special envoy convinced the DPRK that the hostile attempt of the Bush administration to stifle the DPRK by force and backpedal the positive development of the situation in the Korean Peninsula and the rest of Northeast Asia has gone to the extremes. Producing no evidence, he asserted that the DPRK has been actively engaged in the enriched uranium program in pursuit of possessing nuclear weapons in violation of the DPRK-US agreed framework. He even intimidated the DPRK side by saying that there would be no dialogue with the US unless the DPRK halts it, and the DPRK-Japan, and North-South [Korea] relations, would be jeopardized. The US attitude was so unilateral and high-handed that the DPRK was stunned by it. The US is seriously mistaken if it thinks such a brigandish attitude, reminding one of a thief crying "stop the thief", would work on the DPRK. As far as the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is concerned, it cropped up as the US has massively stockpiled nuclear weapons in South Korea and its vicinity and threatened the DPRK, a small country, with those weapons for nearly half a century, pursuing a hostile policy toward it in accordance with the strategy for world supremacy. The DPRK-US Agreed Framework was adopted in October 1994, but the US has been deprived of the right to talk about the implementation of the framework since then. Under Article 1 of the Framework, the US is obliged to provide light water reactors to the DPRK by the year 2003 in return for the DPRK's freezing of graphite moderated reactors and their related facilities. But only site preparation for the LWR was made though 8 years have passed since the DPRK froze its nuclear facilities. This will bring the DPRK an annual loss of 1,000 mw(e) in 2003 when light water reactor no.1 is scheduled to be completed and that of 2,000 mw(e) from the next year... Under Article 2 of the Framework, the two sides are obliged to move toward full normalization of the political and economic relations. Over the last 8 years, however, the US has persistently pursued the hostile policy toward the DPRK and maintained economic sanctions on it. The former has gone the length of listing the latter as part of the "axis of evil." Under Article 3 of the Framework, the US is obliged to give formal assurances to the DPRK against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the US. However, the US listed the DPRK as a target of its pre-emptive nuclear attack. Under Article 4 of the Framework, and paragraph g of its confidential minute, the DPRK is to allow nuclear inspections only after the "delivery of essential non-nuclear components for the first LWR unit, including turbines and generators" is completed. But, the US has already come out with a unilateral demand for nuclear inspection in a bid to convince the international community of the DPRK's violation of the Framework. This compelled the DPRK to make public the confidential minute for the first time. The US has, in the final analysis, observed none of the four articles of the Framework. It is only the US that can know whether it had willingness to implement the Framework when it was adopted or put a signature to it without sincerity, calculating that the DPRK would collapse sooner or later. However, the Bush administration listed the DPRK as part of the "axis of evil" and a target of the US pre-emptive nuclear strikes. This was a clear declaration of a war against the DPRK as it totally nullified the DPRK-US Joint Statement and Agreed Framework. In the long run, the Bush administration has adopted it as its policy to make a pre-emptive nuclear strike at the DPRK. Such moves, a gross violation of the basic spirit of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, reduced the inter-Korean joint declaration on denuclearization to a dead document. Its reckless political, economic and military pressure is most seriously threatening the DPRK's right to existence, creating a grave situation on the Korean Peninsula. Nobody would be so naive as to think that the DPRK would sit idle under such [a] situation. That was why the DPRK made itself very clear to the special envoy of the US President that the DPRK was entitled to possess not only nuclear weapon but any type of weapon more powerful than that so as to defend its sovereignty and right to existence from the ever-growing nuclear threat by the US. The DPRK, which values sovereignty more than life, was left with no other proper answer to the US behaving so arrogantly and impertinently. The DPRK has neither need nor duty to explain something to the US [when the US is] seeking to attack it if it refuses to disarm itself. Nevertheless, the DPRK, with greatest magnanimity, clarified that it was ready to seek a negotiated settlement of this issue on the following three conditions: firstly, if the US recognizes the DPRK's sovereignty; secondly, if it assures the DPRK of non-aggression; and thirdly, if the US does not hinder the economic development of the DPRK. Nowadays, the US and its followers assert that negotiations should be held after the DPRK puts down its arms. This is a very abnormal logic. Then, how can the DPRK counter any attack with empty hands? Their assertion is little short of demanding the DPRK yield to pressure, which means death. Nobody can match anyone ready to die. This is the faith and will of the army and people of the DPRK determined to remain true to the army-based policy to the last. The position of the DPRK is invariable. The DPRK considers that it is a reasonable and realistic solution to the nuclear issue to conclude a non-aggression treaty between the DPRK and the US if the grave situation of the Korean Peninsula is to be bridged over. If the US legally assures the DPRK of non-aggression, including the non-use of nuclear weapons against it, by concluding such treaty, the DPRK will be ready to clear the former of its security concerns. The settlement of all problems with the DPRK, a small country, should be based on removing any threat to its sovereignty and right to existence. There may be negotiations or the use of deterrent force to be consistent with this basis, but the DPRK wants the former, as far as possible. Source: Conclusion of Non-Aggression Treaty between DPRK and US Called For, Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), http://www.kcna.co.jp, October 25. © 2002 The Acronym Institute. |