The first day of 2012 saw the first steps of the Kim Jong Eun regime.
The New Year’s Joint Editorial typically outlines the nation’s political course for the year. Perhaps because of the situation created by Kim Jong Il’s sudden death, this year’s message placed the emphasis on continuing the system that Kim Jong Il made his own.
The core message centered around emphasizing the legacy of Kim Jong Il and setting up the leadership system of Kim Jong Eun. It mourned the former dictator’s death as “the greatest loss in the 5,000 year history of our race,” while using the background of his alleged ‘achievements’ to segue into slogans urging the people to help make 2012 a year of revival for the nation’s strength.
Underlining the legacy of Kim Jong Il makes sense as an attempt to legitimize and buttress the authority of the new leader, to make up for his own lack of any achievements that might otherwise be used to arouse public support. At one point it even said, “Respected comrade Kim Jong Eun is great comrade Kim Jong Il.”
Earlier, on the 30th, the National Defense Commission had pledged its loyalty to Kim Jong Eun, but also included a stern warning “not to expect any change from us,” confirming the power elite’s general objection to any form of liberation. This will surely have a significant effect on public opinion in South Korea, where many people had been hoping that Kim Jong Eun’s youth and experience studying overseas were an indication that he would pursue a path of liberation.
However, despite the efforts of the regime, using Kim Jong Il in attempts to secure the authority of the new leader may not be all positive. Although Kim Jong Il was able to perfect his own system of absolute authority, he did so through the excessive use of civilian controls at the same time as turning the economy into a basket case. Given how different the atmosphere has been in North Korea compared to the death of Kim Il Sung in 1994, emphasizing the legacy of Kim Jong Il might inadvertently end up increasing public disillusionment, as the public is made to realize that no meaningful change is going to be forthcoming.
This year’s message somewhat lowered the tone of last year, in which there was talk of the development of the people’s economy. It also downplayed the promise of a ‘Strong and Prosperous Nation’, declaring at the very moment the falsity of those pledges is about to be realized that it is instead more important to prepare for the next hundred years now that the first century of the Juche calendar has passed.
However, the message did also include some modest lines about 2012 being a year of economic revival. To make this happen, it spoke of the need for “the flames of reform to rise up in South Hamkyung Province, in the areas of light industry and agriculture that are so crucial to a prosperous state.” It continued, “The fighting spirit of Party organizations and revolutionary spirit of these groups will be verified by their resolution of the food problem,” an apparent acknowledgement of the failure to achieve any results in the field of agriculture but at the same time passing the buck for that failure firmly onto bureaucrats.
Elsewhere, in a complete about-face from the charm offensive of last year, the editorial used the issue of South Korea allowing condolence parties to travel north to beat the Lee Myung Bak administration and incite internal conflict in South Korea, claiming that by interfering with the free expression of sympathy, as well as generally ignoring the times and public opinion, the Lee administration has put itself in hot domestic water. The US-ROK alliance also made an appearance, with some phrases about the withdrawal of US forces in South Korea designed to instill wariness about the alliance and agitate anti-American sentiment among pro-North Korean elements in South Korea, a key rallying point for some demographics on the left.
This also makes sense, since from this point on, North Korea is expected to continuing doing whatever it can to better the chances of ending up 2012 with an administration in Seoul more amenable to engagement policies.
In all, the New Year’s Message stayed true to form, continuing a tradition laced with slogans designed to induce public loyalty to the regime. The only point of difference was the new leader, and the beginning of another hundred years.
