Η Δημοκρατία της Κορέας (aka Νότια) θα είναι πλέον απλά ένα εχθρικό γειτονικό κράτος. Ωστόσο οι Βόρειοι υπόσχονται ότι ποτέ δεν θα επιδιώξουν πρώτοι την έναρξη ενός πολέμου με σκοπό την προσάρτηση.
Πως το ερμηνεύετε το λόγο αυτής της αλλαγής; Έχει στόχο την συνθήκη ειρήνης μεταξύ ξεχωριστών κρατών, εφόσον ακολουθήσουν κάποτε οι Νότιοι; Ή το αντίθετο, δηλαδή την δαιμονοποίηση του αντιπάλου;
Παραθέτω το σχετικό απόσπασμα, πριν από αυτό είναι για την οικονομία, ενώ μετά ακολουθούν πιο γενικές αρχές εξωτερικής πολιτικής, μπορείτε να το δείτε όλο στο λινκ στο τέλος.
http://www.rodong.rep.kp/en/index.php?M ... 1IMDAxQA==Comrade Deputies!
Today the Supreme People's Assembly newly legalized the policy of our Republic toward the south on the basis of putting an end to the nearly 80 year-long history of inter-Korean relations and recognizing the two states both existing in the Korean peninsula.
As solemnly clarified at the 2023 December Plenary Meeting of the Party Central Committee, our Party, government and people had shown great magnanimity and tireless patience and made sincere efforts always with the view that those of the ROK are still the fellow countrymen and compatriots in the long period of history and even discussed with them the great cause of national reunification in a candid manner.
But it is the final conclusion drawn from the bitter history of the inter-Korean relations that we cannot go along the road of national restoration and reunification together with the ROK clan that adopted as its state policy the all-out confrontation with our Republic, dreaming of the "collapse of our government" and "unification by absorption," and lost compatriotic consciousness, getting more vicious and arrogant in the madcap confrontational racket.
The north-south relations have been completely fixed into the relations between two states hostile to each other and the relations between two belligerent states, not the consanguineous or homogeneous ones any more. This is the present situation of the relations between the north and the south today caused by the heinous and self-destructive confrontational maneuvers of the ROK, a group of outsiders' top-class stooges, and the true picture of the Korean peninsula just unveiled before the world.
We have formulated a new stand on the north-south relations and the policy of reunification and dismantled all the organizations we established as solidarity bodies for peaceful reunification at the current session of the Supreme People's Assembly which discusses the laws of the DPRK. It can be said this is an indispensable process that should take place without fail.
As the southern border of our country has been clearly drawn, the illegal "northern limit line" and any other boundary can never be tolerated, and if the ROK violates even 0.001 mm of our territorial land, air and waters, it will be considered a war provocation.
In this regard, I think it is necessary to revise some contents of the Constitution of the DPRK.
I have already recalled at the recent plenary meeting that the so-called constitution of the ROK openly stipulates that "the territory of the ROK covers the Korean peninsula and its attached islands".
Recently I studied the constitutions of some other countries and found that they clearly stipulate the political and geographical definition of the territorial parts in which state sovereignty is exercised, the territorial land, territorial waters and territorial airspace in other word.
There is no provision specifying such definition in the existing constitution of our country. Since our Republic definitely defined the ROK as a foreign country and the most hostile state after completely eliminating the original concept contradictory to reality that the ROK is the partner for reconciliation and reunification and the fellow countrymen, it is necessary to take legal steps to legitimately and correctly define the territorial sphere where the sovereignty of the DPRK as an independent socialist nation is exercised.
In my opinion, we can specify in our constitution the issue of completely occupying, subjugating and reclaiming the ROK and annex it as a part of the territory of our Republic in case a war breaks out on the Korean peninsula.
And I think it is right to specify in the relevant paragraph of our constitution that such linguistic remnants misinterpreting the north and the south as fellow countrymen as "3 000-ri tapestry-like land" and "80 million compatriots" are not used in the political, ideological, mental and cultural life of our people, and that education should be intensified to instill into them the firm idea that ROK is their primary enemy state and invariable principal enemy.
Besides, in my view, it is necessary to delete such expressions in the constitution as "northern half" and "independence, peaceful reunification and great national unity".
I think the constitution of the Republic should be revised in consideration of such matters and they should be discussed at the next session of the Supreme People’s Assembly.
The constitutional revision should be followed by timely practical measures to get rid of the remnants of the past era which may be seen as symbols of "north and south Koreas with consanguineous and homogeneous relations", "By Our Nation Itself" and "peaceful reunification".
For the present, we should take strict stepwise measures to thoroughly block all the channels of north-south communication along the border, including the one of physically and completely cutting off the railway tracks in our side, which existed as a symbol of north-south exchange and cooperation, to an irretrievable level.
We should also completely remove the eye-sore "Monument to the Three Charters for National Reunification" standing at the southern gateway to the capital city of Pyongyang and take other measures so as to completely eliminate such concepts as "reunification", "reconciliation" and "fellow countrymen" from the national history of our Republic.
Taking this opportunity, I would like to make clear once again the revolutionary character of the work for strengthening the self-reliant military capabilities, which our Republic firmly preserves as its own life, unfazed by any changes of situation.
I reaffirm that the strongest absolute strength we are cultivating is not a means of preemptive attack for realizing unilateral "reunification by force of arms" but the capabilities for legitimate self-defence pertaining to our right to self-defence, which should be bolstered up without fail definitely to defend ourselves.
In the present world where jungle law prevails, and to our country located in the hot spot where the danger of war have lingered for decades, the possession of powerful military muscle is an inevitable process of struggle to be indispensably chosen to defend the destiny of our country and nation and a historic task to be accepted as a fate.
Despite the worst difficulties accompanied by the enemy’s persistent pressure and sanctions, we have remarkably bolstered up our self-reliant military capabilities and nuclear war deterrent to be strongest without any slightest vacillation. As a result, any aggressor forces on the earth have long dared not push the situation to such worst phase as the outbreak of a war on this land.
Explicitly speaking, we will never unilaterally unleash a war if the enemies do not provoke us.
The enemies should never misjudge this as our weakness.
Then, will we confine our national self-defensive capabilities to serving the purpose of only defending ourselves and preventing war?
Absolutely not.
I have already clearly mentioned the second mission of our nuclear force, in addition to its basic duty of deterring war.
A level-headed judgment of the special environment, in which the most hostile state, the Republic of Korea, exists in our nearest neighborhood, and of the situation, in which instability of the regional situation is soaring due to the U.S.-led escalation of military tensions, has found that the danger of the outbreak of a war to be caused by a physical clash has considerably aggravated and reached a red line.
We do not want war, but we also have no intention of avoiding it.
There is no reason to opt for war, and therefore, there is no intention of unilaterally going to war, but once a war becomes a reality facing us, we will never try to avoid it, and we will take perfect and prompt action we thoroughly prepared in order to defend our sovereignty, security of the people and right to existence.
The war will terribly destroy the entity called the Republic of Korea and put an end to its existence.
And it will inflict an unimaginably crushing defeat upon the U.S.
Our military capabilities, already in readiness to do so, are being rapidly updated.
If the enemies ignite a war, our Republic will resolutely punish the enemies by mobilizing all its military forces including nuclear weapons.
I would have lived in peace. But my enemies brought me war.
