In a Kim Yo Jong South Korea statement issued April 6, the senior WPK official acknowledged President Lee Jae-myung’s apology over a South Korean drone incursion into North Korean airspace \u2014 but paired it with an unambiguous threat. A follow-up statement the next day from Jang Kum Chol, the North’s first vice minister of foreign affairs, made clear that Seoul had missed the point entirely, mocking South Korean officials as “stupid fools” offering “wishful interpretations.” South Korea had been warned. It wasn’t listening.<\/p>\n
As someone who has spent years observing and studying North Korea, I find this deeply disappointing and painful. It makes me angry. And yet, in a sense, South Korea brought this on itself. The country’s North Korea policy has been built on wishful thinking.<\/p>\n
North Korea was saying two things simultaneously: A (a general statement) and B (a warning). In fact, the emphasis was squarely on B. The problem is that Seoul deliberately highlighted only A, interpreted it to suit its own preferences, and pushed ahead with policy on that basis. A significant portion of the media played along, packaging these selective readings into plausible-sounding headlines that led the public astray.<\/p>\n
The president cannot let this episode pass without consequence. This cannot become another “Moon Jae-in government replay,” the kind of approach that produced the demolition of the inter-Korean liaison office and North Korea’s famous “boiled cow’s head” jeer. That trajectory runs entirely counter to the pragmatic, deliberative governing philosophy that President Lee Jae-myung’s administration has staked its identity on. Hard-headed reflection is needed, and concrete lessons must be drawn to prevent a recurrence.<\/p>\n
A Board of Audit and Inspection performance audit would be the most substantive response available. A systematic review of operations across relevant ministries and the National Security Council (NSC), the South Korean government body responsible for coordinating national security policy, should clearly determine: whether frontline officials misjudged the situation by simply telling superiors what they wanted to hear; whether leadership errors rooted in outdated assumptions drove the miscalculation; or whether groupthink foreclosed clearer analysis. Only by identifying the failure can the government prevent it from happening again.<\/p>\n
I want to give readers the opportunity to read both North Korean statements in their entirety, so they can judge for themselves where the government and press went wrong. Since the current administration took office, members of the public wishing to read the Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK), have technically been permitted to visit designated libraries to do so. But few people have the time or inclination. Fortunately, the statements are not long. In the excerpts below, the portions in bold are what the government and the media either deliberately or carelessly overlooked.<\/p>\n
“Lee Jae Myung, president of the ROK, said on April 6 that he felt sorry about causing unnecessary military tensions through an irresponsible and reckless act, as regards the ROK-borne drone’s violation of the DPRK’s airspace.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The ROK president personally expressed regret and talked about a measure for preventing recurrence. Our government appreciated it as a very fortunate and wise behavior for its own sake.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Our head of state commented it as a manifestation of frank and broad-minded man’s attitude.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
For its own security, the ROK side should stop any reckless provocation against the DPRK and refrain from any attempt at contact, instead of paying lip-service to the utmost importance of peace and security.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The ROK side should be mindful that it will be forced to pay a price too much for it, as already warned, if such a provocation as violating the inalienable sovereignty of our state occurs again.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n April 6, 2026, Pyongyang.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n “On the night of the 6th, the department director of the Central Committee of the Korean Workers’ Party issued a statement regarding South Korea. The analysis from various quarters in South Korea, including Cheong Wa Dae, is truly a spectacle.<\/strong><\/p>\n If the South Korean side takes our government’s swift response as an ‘exceptional friendly response’ or ‘rapid mutual confirmation of intent between leaders,’ this will also be recorded as world-startling fools’ ‘hope-filled dream reading.’<\/strong><\/p>\n The core of the statement was a clear warning.<\/p>\n Speaking of the department director’s statement, he quite clearly delivered a pointed warning to South Korea in very brief, measured language.<\/p>\n Since you are hard of hearing<\/strong> and apparently did not understand, let me illuminate the true meaning of the statement as I read it:<\/p>\n ‘Well done. If you want to live safely, you need to know how to honestly admit your own faults like this. Among that brazen lot, there was at least one decent, honest person. If you want to live safely, prevent a recurrence. If you keep acting up in front of us, it won’t be fun. If you want to live comfortably, don’t mess with us.’<\/strong> That is the basic gist of the statement as I read it.<\/p>\n Today as well, Director Kim Yo Jong, while making remarks about the so-called ‘resolution’ fabricated at the UN Human Rights Council a few days ago, described South Korea as mangy dogs mindlessly barking along with neighborhood dogs, and asked me whether last night’s statement had been amusing.<\/p>\n I told her, of course, that South Korea’s ‘hope-filled dream reading’ was very amusing.<\/p>\n The identity of South Korea, the most hostile adversary state of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, cannot change no matter what its officials say or do.<\/strong><\/p>\n April 7, 2026, Pyongyang.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Kim Yo Jong made two distinct points in response to President Lee’s April 6 apology over the drone incident, delivered at the opening of a cabinet meeting. The first was a ceremonial acknowledgment: Lee’s apology was “fortunate,” “wise,” and reflected the conduct of “an honest and magnanimous person.” The second was a threat: abandon any attempt at contact, and be prepared to “pay an unbearable price.”<\/p>\n Where the emphasis actually fell is clear from the overall logic of the statement, from North Korea’s “two hostile states” doctrine proclaimed in late 2023, which formally repudiated the concept of reunification with South Korea, and from Kim Jong Un’s hardline speeches at the recent party congress and Supreme People’s Assembly. I believe anyone who reads the original statements will reach the same conclusion.<\/p>\n And yet our government and most of our media selectively latched onto the first point and spun it to suit themselves, only to receive a humiliating corrective from Jang Kum Chol. The government’s vision and efforts to rebuild inter-Korean relations and construct a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula deserve acknowledgment. That goal is the right one to pursue. But policy cannot be built on wishful thinking. North Korea under Kim Jong Un is a real and specific counterpart, operating within a real and specific regional environment. Seoul must proceed on the basis of objective analysis and careful strategy, taking the long view.<\/p>\n The president’s formal apology over the drone incident is understandable as an exercise of executive authority, and befits the role of a head of state who must think in broad terms. But the ministries cannot all behave like the president. The Ministry of Unification, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of National Defense, the National Intelligence Service, and the presidential office must each act in accordance with their own distinct institutional identities. The same goes, without saying, for the press.<\/p>\n\u2461 Statement by Jang Kum Chol, First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and Director of Department 10<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Closing thoughts<\/strong><\/h2>\n