KCNA's magic word for today: "Brinkmanship".
Some leading media in the western world are talking about the DPRK's "brinkmanship tactics" and "brinkmanship diplomacy" more often than not when commenting on the DPRK-U.S. relations. There are some points to be made clear before commenting on the viewpoints and stand of the western media and some parrots in Japan and South Korea who like to paint the DPRK's stand and attitude towards political, military and diplomatic confrontation with the U.S. as publicity stunts.
| Okay. Guess you're gonna make those points, so go ahead... |
They are so naive as to describe the DPRK's independent foreign policy and its principled stand and activities for its implementation as "brinkmanship tactics" only to betray their ignorance of the DPRK. This is baseless criticism of its just stand. The use of such phraseologies as "brinkmanship tactics" and "brinkmanship diplomacy" by hostile forces and their mouthpieces and parrots is designed to defile the nature of the DPRK's foreign policy and activities and tarnish its international image.
Tarnish the NK international image? Oh, that'll be hard to do.
They are apt to consider the DPRK's stand and attitude toward the dialogue and negotiations with the U.S. as a sort of tactics to make a bargain with the former's playing card hidden behind.
Huh???
They are, however, mistaken. The review of the whole process of the DPRK-U.S. negotiations proves that their contention is absolutely groundless as it is based on extremely superficial assumption and sheer lie.
The nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula emerged as the U.S. deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea and increased nuclear threat to the DPRK. Therefore, it is the U.S. which has posed a threat to the DPRK. The nuclear crisis in 1993 and the present crisis have not changed at all in their nature. In 1993 the U.S. misused the international atomic energy agency to attain its sinister political aim and gravely infringed upon the sovereignty and the security of the DPRK, thus compelling it to take the measure of withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
It's all your fault, Imperialist Yankee Dogs!!!
I feel sinister!
I feel sinister!
I feel sinister and nasty and fo-o-o-oul!... |
It was none other than the U.S. that sparked the crisis by posing a nuclear threat to the DPRK and internationalizing it and drove the issue to the extremes. Then who has actually resorted to "brinkmanship tactics"?
| I confess! I did it! I did it, and I'm glad! Glad, y'unnerstan'? |
Later, the DPRK-U.S. negotiations took place to cross over the crisis and the DPRK-U.S. joint statement was adopted on June 11, 1993 and the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework on October 21, 1994. The U.S. consent to the AF was not a sort of concession to the DPRK nor its interests were infringed upon unilaterally. But at that time the U.S. conservative hard-liners distorted the reality, saying that they suffered a loss, caught in by the DPRK's "brinkmanship tactics".
| Did any of that make sense? (Didn't thinks so...) |
The AF which called for the U.S. provision of light water reactors in return for the DPRK's nuclear freeze only resulted in bringing a huge loss of electricity to the DPRK due to the U.S. insincere attitude toward it.
| Attitude, as we all know, is everything. Good thing the U.S. attitude wasn't "do or die." |
However, the U.S. conservative hardliners, republican hawks in particular, resorted to brazen-faced and mean operations to totally scrap the AF as they were displeased with the DPRK-U.S. negotiations from the outset.
"I'm mean,
I'm mean,
Ya know whut I mean?" |
The republican-dominated U.S. congress session convened in 1999 called for reassessing its Korea policy as if it had been deceived by the adoption of the AF. The "Armitage report" worked out by them at that time clearly shows the root cause of the U.S. mistrust and hostility toward the DPRK which is also reflected in the Bush administration's Korea policy.
| I think they're mad that we don't trust them because they lied to us... |
All these facts...
| Notice they actually haven't presented any facts, only an interpretation of motives? |
...clearly tell why the U.S. has not honored the AF since its adoption and why the Bush administration has pursued the hard-line and hostile policy toward the DPRK since its emergence, talking about the "reexamination of the Korea policy," "part of an axis of evil" and "preemptive attack." The U.S. was compelled to respond to the DPRK-U.S. negotiations in the past by the DPRK's patient efforts and the world peace-loving people's strong call for averting a war on the Korean Peninsula and ensuring peace and stability in the region.
Pay no attention to those couple of nukes sitting in Kimmies garage...
It did so not out of any "good faith" or "generosity". The adoption of the AF, certain progress made in the bilateral relations in the period of the Clinton administration and a new phase of reconciliation opened between the north and the south were all attributable to the DPRK's fair and above-board, principled and consistent policy, not a product of such a bargaining strategy as "brinkmanship tactics."
Ah, the Clinton- Carter days.When we could do whatever we wanted. Can he be President again?
The people in the DPRK are making legitimate efforts to build a powerful nation on the socialist land chosen and built by themselves and achieve reunification and peace of the country. As far as the bargaining tactics is concerned, it is none other than the U.S. which has employed it with rare zeal. The U.S. double-dealing policy based on upperhand in strength is a bargaining strategy based on threat, blackmail, appeasement and deception.
| I think he just looked up words marked as "bad thing" in his style book... |
It is foolish of the U.S. to think this strategy will work on the DPRK. It is only wasting its time. The long history of the DPRK-U.S. relationship and bilateral confrontation has already proved more than once the truth that the U.S. can never bring the DPRK to its knees.
| That's Dear Leader's job... |
|