North Korea’s Rodong Shinmun, through a “critic’s article” on the 1st, criticized President Lee Myung Bak, designating him a “rebel” and criticizing the new administration’s “Vision 3000: Denuclearization and Openness,” drawing into question the subsequent influence on North-South Korean relations.
Even though it was published as a “critic’s article,” from the perspective of Rodong Shinmun which takes the side of the North Korean Workers’ Party, the critique expressed the North Korean authorities’ position on the Lee Myung Bak administration’s North Korean policy.
The piece in Rodong Shinmun, rather than a spokesperson’s statement of Chosun Central Communications, can be evaluated as being a notch lower. An article published under the name of the critic is also a degree lower than an editorial or review. Related to this, one defector who was formerly a reporter in North Korea said in a phone conversation with the Daily NK, “The reason why Rodong Shinmun firmly mentioned ‘critic’s article” is due to the burden in the possibility that it will reflect North Korean authorities’ official position.”
North Korea, in continuation of the evacuation of the North-South Korean Exchange Cooperative Committee’s South Korean delegates and the request for the apology and cancellation of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Kim Tae Young’s remark, gave a direct criticism of President Lee and his North Korean policy, the intent of which can be interpreted as the North’s attempt to raise the level of threat against the South.
This is the first time that North Korea made a South Korean President the object of criticism in eight years. Despite the expulsion of South Korean officials, the warning of a cessation in North-South Korean dialogue, and high-level resistance, the South Korean government’s failure to back down and instead emphasizing a “bold and resolution” position can be seen as heightening the level of threat.
North Korea warns of conversion to an “Alienate the South and Befriend the U.S.” policy?
The publication coldly criticized regarding the ” Vision 3000: Denuclearization and Openness,” “Proposing a complete nuclear abandonment and basing the entire North-South Korean relations on opening is extremely nonsensical. Such is an anti-unification statement which can drive North-South Korean relations into a catastrophe and invites war and confrontation.”
It also criticized, “The new administration is trying to put forward a pragmatism, denying the June 15 Joint Statement and October 4 Statement and trying to degrade North-South Korean relations into material for cajolement of a practical diplomacy. If it tramples on the North-South statements and agreements and chooses a path of confrontation by following outside powers, we cannot help but respond,” which reveal a mentality of discomfort regarding the Lee Myung Bak administration’s tough position on U.S.-South Korean relations.
Related to making “denuclearization” everything, the medium warned, “‘The priorization on North Korean nuclear abandonment’ is a confrontation and wartime statement which creates obstacles.”
It insisted that the denuclearization issue on the peninsula is a U.S.-North Korea and international issue and not a issue into which the Lee administration can meddle, essentially suggesting “Excluding South Korea and Befriending the U.S.” as a strategy.”
Regarding the Lee administration’s “Four Principles for Pursuing a North Korean policy,” “After June 15th in 2000, we have seen a good relation between North and South Korea and were pursuing an improved direction akin to the Kim Dae Jung-Roh Moo Hyun Administration’s North Korean policy of the past.”
Especially when discussing the South Korean economy, the reason why it urged “Let’s see how you can survive with the fall-out with the North,” is that depending on the subsequent situation, it can give the South Korean administration a blow through furthering militaristic tension.
Administration, from a long-term perspective on North Korean policy, will maintain a principled approach
Simultaneously, Rodong Shinmun responded sensitively regarding the proposal of the human rights issue by the Lee administration. It insisted, “President Lee’s mentioning the human rights issue is an intentional political provocation which drives North-South relations to confrontation and advocates hostility and distrust in the same family while revealing ignorance about the North at the same time.”
Regarding this, Yoon Duk Min, a professor at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and Security, said, “North Korea is increasing its threat towards South Korea while keeping long-term blockade in its mind between the North and the South. The U.S.-North Korean nuclear cooperation has not been resolved and the movement to strengthen the U.S.-South Korean alliance has not been pleasing to them, so the warning towards the South will continue for a while.”
Professor Yoon analyzed, “North Korea, at the initial stage of each South Korean administration, has ceased North-South exchange and ventured into acts such as military provocation. This can be also be analyzed as “a period to tame the South Korean administration” rather than the North’s actual consideration of a rupture with the Lee administration.”
In particular, he expressed, “Taking into consideration the U.S. presidential elections, etc., the North is trying to send the message that the Lee administration should not strengthen the ‘U.S.-South Korean alliance.’ Subsequently, it will be able to attempt high-level military provocation until the Beijing Olympics.”
At any rate, South Korean administration, according to the position, “We will not respond tit-for-tat to North Korea’s reaction,” is not expected to change the foundation and will respond from a long-term perspective.
Actually, a person related to the Blue House met with reporters on the afternoon of April 1 and expressed dissatisfaction, but refrained from making any other comment, “We do not look at relations with the North from a short-term perspective. We will walk step-by-step by looking at the long-term picture. We believe that criticizing the President is an inappropriate action.”
