Executive Intelligence Review

FROM EIR DAILY ALERT


North Korea’s Top Negotiator: The Problem Is Not Trump or Pompeo—It’s Bolton

May 16, 20018 (EIRNS)—The North Korean Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Kim Kye-Gwan, who has been a leading negotiator for North Korean talks with the West since the 1990s, issued a scathing attack today on U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton, while clearly distinguishing the good will of both President Donald Trump and Secretary Mike Pompeo from Bolton’s threats to give North Korea the Libya treatment. Kim’s excerpted statement, issued by the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reads:

“Kim Jong Un ... made a strategic decision to put an end to the unpleasant history of the D.P.R.K.-U.S. relations and met Pompeo, U.S. secretary of state, for two times during his visit to our country and took very important and broad-minded steps for peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and the world.

“In response to the noble intention of Chairman Kim Jong Un, President Trump stated his position for terminating the historically deep-rooted hostility and improving the relations between the D.P.R.K. and the U.S. I appreciated the position positively with an expectation that upcoming D.P.R.K.-U.S. summit would be a big step forward for catalyzing détente on the Korean peninsula and building a great future.

“But now prior to the D.P.R.K.-U.S. summit, unbridled remarks provoking the other side of dialogue are recklessly made in the U.S. and I am totally disappointed as these constitute extremely unjust behavior. High-ranking officials of the White House and the Department of State including Bolton, White House national security adviser, are letting loose the assertions of so-called Libya mode of nuclear abandonment, ‘complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization,’ ‘total decommissioning of nuclear weapons, missiles, biochemical weapons,’ etc., while talking about formula of ‘abandoning nuclear weapons first, compensating afterwards.’

“This is not an expression of intention to address the issue through dialogue. It is essentially a manifestation of awfully sinister move to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq which had been collapsed due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers.

“I cannot suppress indignation at such moves of the U.S., and harbor doubt about the U.S. sincerity for improved D.P.R.K.-U.S. relations through sound dialogue and negotiations.

“World knows too well that our country is neither Libya nor Iraq which have met miserable fate.

“It is absolutely absurd to dare compare the D.P.R.K., a nuclear weapon state, to Libya which had been at the initial stage of nuclear development.

“We shed light on the quality of Bolton already in the past, and we do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards him....

“We have already stated our intention for denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and made clear on several occasions that precondition for denuclearization is to put an end to anti-D.P.R.K. hostile policy and nuclear threats and blackmail of the United States.

“But now, the U.S. is miscalculating the magnanimity and broad-minded initiatives of the D.P.R.K. as signs of weakness and trying to embellish and advertise as if these are the product of its sanctions and pressure.

“The U.S. is trumpeting as if it would offer economic compensation and benefit in case we abandon nuke. But we have never had any expectation of U.S. support in carrying out our economic construction and will not at all make such a deal in future, either....

“If President Trump follows in the footsteps of his predecessors, he will be recorded as more tragic and unsuccessful president than his predecessors, far from his initial ambition to make unprecedented success.

“If the Trump administration takes an approach to the D.P.R.K.-U.S. summit with sincerity for improved D.P.R.K.-U.S. relations, it will receive a deserved response from us. However, if the U.S. is trying to drive us into a corner to force our unilateral nuclear abandonment, we will no longer be interested in such dialogue and cannot but reconsider our proceeding to the D.P.R.K.-U.S. summit.”

T