[imText1]On the 30th of last month, the U.S. announced North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism for the second time in the “2006 Country Reports on Terrorism.” The U.S. cited the kidnapping of Japanese as the reason for naming North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Until now, the U.S. seemed to acknowledge North Korea’s abductions as terror and has regarded these acts as extremely serious. However, this report undermines the Korean abduction problem and only considers problematic the issue of the Japanese kidnappings.
North Korea has not acknowledged the abduction of Koreans nor has repatriated everyone. It is only inevitable to become curious about the reason for omitting the South Korean abductions. Is this saying that abductions of Koreans are not deemed terror?
That is probably not the case. The analysis has come forth that this attitude change in the U.S. is closely related to the political attitude of the nations surrounding the February 13th Agreement.
In the report, it was clear that the U.S., in simultaneously deleting the South Korean abduction problem and abridging the Japanese abduction problem, tried to avoid inciting North Korea.
After the February 13th Agreement, the U.S. has improved its North Korean policy to a placatory one and has adhered to the position of staying away from aggravating North Korea. The abridgement in the report is basically a way to help resolve the North Korean nuclear problem. However, it was also most likely difficult to refuse Japan’s request, an ally country, to include the Japanese abduction problem in the report.
The analysis can be made that the U.S. tried to sufficiently melt the U.S.-North Korea relations, South Korea-U.S. relations, and U.S.-Japan relations through the report. This year’s Report on Terror has seriously changed according to the benighted mood of the February 13th agreement.
In 2005, the U.S. urgently reported that the number of Korean abductees was 485. Further, the fact of Japanese abductions was a past event, but the abductions of South Koreans took place at least dozens of times, including Pastor Kim Dong Sik in 2000 and subsequently in regards to Ms. Jin Kyung Sook as well as incidents of rape. This year’s report overlooks balance between South Korea and Japan to distort the whole abductions problem.
North Korea’s systematic abduction of Japanese and Koreans to educate Anti-South Korea Intelligence Activity spies in 1970 is a widely known reality. This report deserves to be criticized for having the potential to subsequently entrench North Korea’s feigning of innocence towards the abduction issue.
The abduction issue goes beyond political analysis and requires a more principled approach. In the case of damage to the principle according to the political situation, the transformation of North Korea’s attitude becomes more necessary. Only if the North, for one, announced surrender of nuclear weapons and concluded a secret treaty promising improvement of its human rights. Presently, the situation does not seem remotely close to this.
Our government’s responsibility is also significant in this report. Rather than being active about the abduction problem like the Japanese administration, we are treating this as a handicap to denuclearization. The possibility cannot be eliminated that the South Korean government made the request to the U.S. to exclude the abduction of South Koreans in the report.
The worst victims of this year’s report are the abductees, who have been kidnapped to North Korea, and their families in Korea. Repeated news regarding Ms. Jin Kyung Sook, who was abducted during her honeymoon near the North Korean-Chinese border, have been relayed that there has been a huge change in the status of her protection. As Korea and the U.S. governments steadfastly negotiate nuclear weapons with the North Korean government authorities, the abductees are simply awaiting the action of the North Korean government at the crossroad of their lives.
