Subscription and demo access

About Interfax
Press Releases
Products & Services
Contact us
Customer Login


09/16 10:01   No one has lifted OPEC+ obligations, Russia is adhering to them - minister
09/16 09:59   Sentsov sees no serious changes at home, sad that 'everyone is fighting everyone'
09/16 09:54   Russia sees no need for emergency measures within OPEC+ due to Saudi situation
09/16 09:47   Russian military report deployment of S-400 missile systems on Novaya Zemlya
09/16 09:37   Russian foreign minister to visit Kazakhstan in October
09/16 09:35   Banks have 2612.3 bln rbs on CBR correspondent accounts on September 16
09/16 09:27   Ankara summit may address attack on Saudi Aramco facilities - Peskov (Part 2)

You can access a demo version of, recieve more information about or subscribe to Interfax publications by filling in and sending the form below.

First name:

Last name:







Please enter the digits in the box below:  |  Interviews  |  Kim Hyun Joon: There is huge difference between DPRK and Iran


July 29, 2015

Kim Hyun Joon: There is huge difference between DPRK and Iran

North Korean Ambassador to Russia Kim Hyun Joon has given an interview to Interfax in which he speaks about differences between the Korean Peninsula nuclear problem and the Iranian nuclear dossier, states Pyongyang‘s readiness to bolster its nuclear potential in response to U.S. actions and calls on Washington not to hold joint exercises with South Korea.

Question: The world community has focused on a possibility of resuming negotiations on the nuclear problem of the Korean peninsula after the Iranian nuclear deal was reached. How do you see prospects of resolving the Korean Peninsula nuclear problem in light of the Iranian deal? What significant differences do you see between nuclear programs of the DPRK and Iran?

Answer: After the problem of the Iranian nuclear dossier was resolved, official representatives of the Department of State and the U.S. establishment have been actively speculating that the Korean Peninsula nuclear problem can be resolved the same way. One must say that the resolution of the problem of the Iranian nuclear dossier was a result of Iran‘s many-year attempts aimed at the recognition of its sovereign right to peaceful nuclear developments and the lifting of many-year illegitimate sanctions against Iran.

One must say that the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula and the Iranian nuclear dossier are absolutely different in nature. It is well known that the DPRK is already a nuclear state in both content and form. Just as any other nuclear state it has its own respective interests.

The DPRK is not interested in dialog that will deal with the issue of unilateral refusal from and freezing of its nuclear program

The nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula is an inevitable and logical result of nuclear threats and hostile policy on behalf of the U.S. that lasted for more than half a century.

For the past 60 years, starting from the times of the Korean War that lasted from 1950 to 1953, when Americans stated publicly that they may use nuclear weapons against the DPRK, thus breeding millions victims of separated families, and up to the present day, the United States have been challenging North Korea with the most serious nuclear threats.

Later the U.S. deployed more than 1,000 nuclear warheads on the territory of South Korea, which has been exposing the DPRK to a constant threat for the past more than 60 years.

The U.S. in order to strangle our republic has been carrying out large scale military exercises with the use of nuclear weapons. Pursuing the goal of economic strangulation of our country the U.S. has been pursuing the most barbaric policy of economic blockade. In recent years it has actively used human rights issues that fully contradict the reality that is formed in the DPRK.

This all proves that the real goal of the U.S. regarding our country is to overthrow the current regime and to seek the change of the current DPRK‘s authorities.

This proves that there is a huge difference between Iran and the DPRK.

Question: The U.S. has recently voiced a number of initiatives on the resumption of the negotiating process on the Korean Peninsula. In what conditions is the resumption of talks possible?

Answer: I have already mentioned that the Korean Peninsula sees every year large-scale joint military exercises with South Korea during which nuclear strikes on the DPRK‘s territory and the capture of Pyongyang are drilled. That is why not seeing this reality any speculation one can make the DPRK unilaterally give up its nuclear potential are very far from the reality.

Americans have been saying recently that the responsibility for delays in resuming the dialog and greater tensions lies on the DPRK. Americans are saying that the U.S. wants dialog, and the DPRK allegedly refuses from it, that the DPRK starts to fan tensions, and that is allegedly the reason why the negotiations cannot be resumed.

This year our government set the task of preserving peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, of increasing economic growth and welfare of our people. In order to achieve these goals, in order to center on the economy and secure a higher welfare of people, one needs stability on the Korean Peninsula. Nevertheless, Americans hold large-scale military exercises together with the South Korean army in February and August. Since these exercises are the main factor of violating peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, our country has several times came up with peace initiatives. In particular, [leader of the DPRK] Comrade Kim Jong Un said in his New Year address that the DPRK is ready to suspend its nuclear tests if the U.S. gives up joint exercises with South Korea. However, the U.S. fully rejected our important proposals aimed at establishing peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Starting from February they launched exercises codenamed Key Resolve and Foal Eagle. That is why the situation on the Korean peninsula reached the end of the rope from the military point of view.

The danger of these exercises is that the U.S. was not afraid of stating that the goal of the exercises is to drill maneuvers to capture our capital, Pyongyang, and to overthrow authorities.

In order to protect ourselves from aggressive military provocations we need to even more bolster our defense potential, including in the nuclear sphere. Thus speaking about prospects of resuming the six-party talks, one can say that it is the U.S. that is not interested on this dialog.

Question: Does, in your opinion, the U.S. policy in the Asian Pacific region poses threats to other regional countries?

Answer: The only goal of the U.S. policy on the Korean Peninsula is to establish its dominance in the Asian Pacific region. All those annual joint exercises are directed against the DPRK, at the same time their distant target is our neighbors, China and Russia.

The U.S. is not interested in peace and the absence of tensions on the Korean Peninsula and the region. Apparently, if there is peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. will have not pretext to station its troops in South Korea, and it will no longer be able to pursue their strategic goals in this region.

If we look at current actions of the U.S. on the global scale, we can see that it strengthens NATO in the West in order to breed conflicts related to Crimea‘s reunification with Russia and the situation in Ukraine, while in the East it actively improves relations with Japan and South Korea, thus setting a goal of deterring and surrounding Russia

That is why all their statements about dialog and negotiations is a vivid example of their hypocrisy and double dealing.

The more Americans pursue and cling to hostile policy towards the DPRK, the more the DPRK is forced to bolster its defense potential.

At this stage an important task is to make the U.S. give up their large-scale exercises. One must condemn Americans for being the main culprit of fanning so protracted tensions.

Question: The U.S. earlier announced their plans to station elements of its missile defense in the Asian Pacific region. The DPRK, just as Russia and China, have many times voiced concerned over this issue. Does the DPRK and Russia take joint steps to neutralize possible U.S. missile defense elements in the region?

Answer: The U.S. is now actively working on a possibility to deploy missile defense elements in South Korea. The same policy is pursued in Europe. It is very important to consider these issues altogether. It is clear as a day that these are links of the same chain. As we can see, the U.S. actively uses the pretext of Ukrainian events in order to even more weaken and isolate Russia and in order to increase the level of pressure on Russia.

We always watch closely and value much the course pursued by Russian President Vladimir Putin. We see how the society is getting consolidated and what enormous effort is given to the bolstering of Russia‘s defense capacity and self-sufficiency of its economy.

The main goal of the U.S. in the Asian Pacific region is to hold large-scale exercises in order to fuel tensions in the region, create a military triangle the U.S.-Japan-South Korea and place missile defense elements in the region.

Thus they want to engage all regional states in an arms race and finally reinforce their dominance in the region. On the other hand they declare dialog and negotiations. It is very important to give a look to the essence of their intentions and give a tougher response.

Question: What in your opinion can contribute to the promotion of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula?

Answer: In order to ensure peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, in order to achieve peace and stability in the region, one has to make the U.S. give up its military exercises, to intensify international criticism and directly say who spearheads all those actions. That is why if the U.S. does not hold exercises in South Korea, if they give up hostile line towards the DPRK, peace will come to the Korean Peninsula. Moreover, our countries [the DPRK and Russia] are neighbors and these factors require greater coordination and cooperation between our countries in achieving peace and stability.


U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Huntsman, who will leave his post in early October, has given an interview to Interfax in which he speaks about exchanges at the highest level between Moscow and Washington, a possibility of Russias return to G8, as well as his vision of the future of U.S.-Russian relations.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has given an interview to Interfax in which he speaks about the U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty on that is expected on August 2, about Russia‘s response to the U.S. and NATO possible deployment of missiles banned by the treaty, and about whether the Cuban Missile Crisis may repeat itself.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will hold negotiations on the sidelines of the Petersburg Dialogue forum in Germany on Thursday. Maas has given an interview to Interfax ahead of the forum, in which he speaks about prospects of settling the conflict in Ukraine, Germanys preparations for ensuring security in the absence of the INF Treaty and attempts to save the Iranian nuclear deal.

German Ambassador to Russia Rudiger von Fritsch, who is leaving Moscow after a five-year mission, told Interfax about the state of affairs in bilateral relations, Germanys position on the Nord Stream 2 project amidst sanction risks, and assessed prospects for settling the crisis in Ukraine under the new authorities in Kyiv.

U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad has given an interview to Interfax in which he speaks about results of the trilateral meeting on Afghanistan settlement that took place in Moscow on April 25, prospects of the intra-Afghan meeting in Doha, and Russia‘s role in the Afghan issue.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has given an interview to Interfax ahead of the Alliances 70th anniversary that is to be celebrated on April 4. He speaks in the interview about the NATOs vision of future relations with Russia, its attitude to the situation surrounding the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) Treaty and the New START Treaty, as well as further plans of expanding the Alliance.

British Ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow has given an interview to Interfax in which he speaks about the current situation in the relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia, the impact of the Skripal case on it, the restoration of the numbers of diplomatic staff, exchange of information on counter-terrorism, possible introduction of sanctions over the Kerch Strait incident, the INF Treaty, and British-Russian economic relations.


 ©   1991—2019   "Interfax News Agency" JSC. All rights reserved.
Contact information   |   Privacy Policy   |   Interfax offices   |   made by web.finmarket

News and other data on this site are provided for information purposes only, and are not intended for republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Interfax.

Browse other Interfax sites:   |   IFX.RU   |   Interfax Group   Rambler's Top100