North Korea Dismisses US Intent to Resume Diplomacy on Denuclearization
In his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump has bragged of his personal ties with Kim Jong Un and expressed hopes of restarting nuclear diplomacy between them. Their high-stakes diplomacy in 2018-19 unraveled due to disputes over U.S.-led sanctions against North Korea. Kim has since executed weapons tests to modernize and expand his nuclear arsenal.
In a statement carried by state media, Kim Yo Jong said she doesn't deny the personal relationship between her brother and Trump 'is not bad.' But she said if their personal relations are to serve the purpose of North Korea's denuclearization, North Korea would view it as 'nothing but a mockery.'
She said it was worth considering that the year is 2025, not 2018 or 2019 — which was during Trump's first term — and any attempt to deny North Korea as a nuclear weapons state would be rejected.
'If the U.S. fails to accept the changed reality and persists in the failed past, the DPRK- U.S. meeting will remain as a 'hope' of the U.S. side,' Kim Yo Jong said, referring to her country by its official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
She said she was responding to reported comments by a U.S. official that Trump is open to talks on denuclearization. She likely was referring to a Saturday article by Yonhap news agency that cited an unidentified White House official as saying Trump 'remains open to engaging with Leader Kim to achieve a fully denuclearized North Korea.'
Kim Yo Jong is a key official on the Central Committee of the North's ruling Workers' Party. She handles the country's relations with South Korea and the United States, and South Korean officials and experts believe she is the North's second-most powerful person after her brother.
Experts have said previously that North Korea would only be interested in talks on a partial surrender of its nuclear capability in return for sanctions relief and other benefits, while retaining some of its nuclear weapons.
The earlier Trump-Kim diplomacy collapsed after Trump rejected Kim's calls for extensive sanctions relief in return for dismantling his main nuclear complex, a limited denuclearization step.
On Monday, Kim Yo Jong rebuffed overtures by South Korea's new liberal government, saying its 'blind trust' in the country's alliance with the U.S. and hostility toward North Korea make it no different from its conservative predecessor.
Her comments imply that North Korea — now preoccupied with its expanding cooperation with Russia — sees no need to resume diplomacy with South Korea anytime soon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
an hour ago
- NHK
Japanese, South Korean foreign ministers discuss development of bilateral ties
Japanese Foreign Minister Iwaya Takeshi has told his South Korean counterpart Cho Hyun that he hopes to steadily develop bilateral ties, at their first in-person meeting in Tokyo. Cho is visiting Japan for the first time since he assumed the post earlier this month. He met Iwaya at the Foreign Ministry on Tuesday. Iwaya said bilateral relations, as well as trilateral ties among Japan, South Korea and the United States, are more important than ever in light of the current strategic environment. He expressed hope that they will steadily develop bilateral relations. Iwaya noted that the two governments have maintained close communication since the launch of President Lee Jae-myung's administration. He said the two countries must work closely together on a wide range of issues, including those involving the Indo-Pacific region. Cho responded that the Lee administration aims to strengthen ties with friendly countries. He said if they can work together on strategies through close cooperation and attempts to build communication, they can overcome crises considering the harsh international situation. Details of the meeting were not immediately available. But the two foreign ministers are believed to have affirmed close partnership in dealing with North Korea's nuclear and missile development programs and its abduction of foreign nationals.
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Japan Times
Early 2026 U.S. midterm ads focus on Medicaid access and Trump tax cuts
Residents of Columbus, Indiana awoke last week to a yellow billboard purchased by the Democratic National Committee blaring: "Under Trump's Watch, Columbus Regional Health is Cutting Medical Services." Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee, which oversees races for the U.S. House of Representatives, this month launched a digital ad campaign touting U.S. President Donald Trump's tax cuts and blaming Democrats for spiking inflation. As members of Congress return to their home districts for the August recess, the Democratic and Republican parties are launching ad blitzes centered around the tax-cut and spending bill Trump signed into law on July 4, in an unofficial start to the 2026 midterm election campaign. Democrats are focusing their message around access to health care, three party operatives and three officials from allied groups said. Republicans are countering that the tax provisions will put more money in voters' pockets — particularly wage workers and seniors, four party operatives said. The bill makes permanent Trump's 2017 tax cuts and funds his immigration enforcement crackdown, while reducing health care and food aid. It devotes $170 billion to immigration enforcement while cutting $1.1 trillion from Medicaid and other public health programs and $186 billion in food assistance. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million people would lose their health insurance by 2034 as a result of the bill, and that the tax provisions and increased immigration and military spending would increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion over the next decade. "How voters feel about Trump and the economy may be the most important factor next fall — but so is how voters feel about the Republican response to their concern," said Jacob Rubashkin, a nonpartisan analyst with Inside Elections. Republican strategists concede that Democrats, who campaigned against the bill while it was working its way through the Republican-controlled House and Senate, are starting with an upper hand in messaging around the legislation. But they say they have plenty of time to sell the bill's benefits. "We will use every tool to show voters that the provisions in this bill are widely popular,' said Mike Marinella, a spokesman for the NRCC. And the party has a cash advantage. The RNC had $81 million in cash at the end of June, according to Federal Election Commission data, compared to the DNC's $15 million during the same period. The DNC has trailed the RNC in fundraising in the first half of the year at the same time as it has deepened its financial commitments, spending in every state, FEC disclosures show. The RNC also enjoys a huge asset in a sitting president who is still holding fundraisers for big-ticket donors. "At the end of the day, Democrats got a jump start on messaging,' said a Republican Senate operative who asked to remain anonymous to discuss party strategy. "They have won the battle. Now we have to focus on winning the war.' Republicans can only afford a net loss of two of the 220 seats they hold in the House to maintain control. In the Senate, they have a 53-47 advantage. 'Critical opportunity' The messaging battle, largely focused on battleground states and districts, is key to defining the bill in the minds of voters. "The bill is currently unpopular, and there's been a lot of conversation among Republicans about how to refocus on the more popular aspects and use the upcoming recess to sell the bill to skeptical voters,' Rubashkin said. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted last month as the bill was moving through Congress, some 64% of registered voters oppose cuts to Medicaid and food stamps in return for lower taxes for everyone. Democrats are seizing on that sentiment, pushing the idea that Republicans have taken away health care to pay for tax giveaways for billionaires. The DNC has purchased billboards in a handful of Republican districts facing reduced services and shutdown of rural hospitals and health facilities. "Republicans threw working families under the bus to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, and we'll never let them — or voters — forget that,' said DNC Deputy Communications Director Abhi Rahman in a statement to Reuters. "This will define the midterms.' Republicans say the bill's provisions on tips, overtime and Social Security show the party is focused on issues affecting working families. They also point to a $50 billion fund the bill establishes to help rural hospitals. In a memo earlier this month, the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged candidates to talk about the bill in personalized terms, highlighting "service industry workers who will keep more of their hard-earned tips,' "first responders and critical workers who will keep more of their overtime pay' and "working parents and caretakers who benefit from increased tax credits for child and dependent care.' Another Republican strategy memo prepared by Tony Fabrizio and David Lee, Trump's pollsters, urges candidates to "lead on kitchen-table issues." The memo was commissioned by One Nation, a super PAC that last week launched a $10-million-plus TV and digital ad blitz playing up the tax features of the bill. The ads will air in states like Georgia and Texas where Republicans are defending seats. Another Republican PAC, Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group founded by Charles Koch and the late David Koch, will launch a TV and digital ad campaign in key districts next month, said Bill Riggs, a spokesperson for AFP. And the American Action Network is running TV and digital ads in 29 battleground congressional districts in Arizona, California, New York and Pennsylvania, emphasizing tax cuts and border security. "It's a new America, full of hope, thanks to President Trump and House Republicans," the ad intones. 'Trump tax' Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to tie Medicaid cuts to reduced health care access and higher costs. The DNC's website claims that the bill will "cost the poorest 10% of households $1,600 a year while raising the income of the richest 10% of Americans by $12,000 a year." Unrig Our Economy, a left-leaning outside group focused on populist economic messaging, is running ads in Iowa, Arizona and Pennsylvania depicting voters voicing frustration at their Republican lawmakers for voting for Trump's bill. "I'm so angry that Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks just voted for the largest cut to Medicaid in history to give tax breaks to billionaires,' said one ad running in Iowa, featuring a Davenport resident identified as Maria. The group plans to spend $7 million by the end of the year, according to spokesperson Kobie Christian. On Monday the group launched a "multi-million dollar' ad campaign focused on the Medicaid cuts in four Texas congressional districts. Protect Our Care, a left-leaning health care advocacy organization, said it plans to spend up to $10 million on ads in the first half of next year, largely focused on urging Republican lawmakers to restore funding to Medicaid. "Republicans won't be able to spin their way out of their parents being kicked out of a nursing home,' said Brad Woodhouse, the group's executive director. Environmental groups are also targeting the bill's rollback of clean energy incentives. Climate Power and the League of Conservation Voters spent $500,000 on an ad pressuring lawmakers in six congressional districts to vote against the bill, claiming that it will increase electricity rates, according to League of Conservation Voters President Pete Maysmith. "The bill just happened, so let's start communicating with people when it's fresh and happening,' said Maysmith. "We don't want to show up later and try to pick up that conversation.'
The Diplomat
3 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Thailand, Cambodia Dispute Status of Border Ceasefire
Uncertainty surrounds the status of a ceasefire agreed by Thailand and Cambodia yesterday, with the two nations seemingly at odds as to whether their agreement was still in effect. Yesterday, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Thailand's acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai agreed to an 'immediate and unconditional' ceasefire after more than two hours of talks hosted by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia. The agreement came into effect at midnight last night. However, just as world leaders were expressing their relief at the cessation of hostilities, the Thai army alleged this morning that Cambodia had launched attacks in multiple areas after the ceasefire was supposed to take effect, and that Thai soldiers had responded with defensive actions. 'Such actions represent a deliberate violation of the ceasefire and a serious breach of trust,' Maj. Gen. Vithai Laithomya said in a statement quoted by the Associated Press. Cambodia's government said there had been 'no armed conflict on all front lines' and that the ceasefire continued to hold. A Thai government spokesperson later said that it was gathering evidence of the Cambodian violations and would submit them in due course to Malaysia, the United States, and China, the nations that attended yesterday's meeting in Putrajaya. As the AP reported from the Thai side of the border, 'it was unclear if fighting was continuing but signs of calm returned in places. Some families displaced by the fighting began returning to their homes.' The ceasefire agreement was intended to end five days of intense fighting, which began on the morning of July 24, when fighting broke out between Cambodian and Thai soldiers close to Ta Moan Thom, an Angkorian temple close to the border between Thailand's Surin province and Cambodia's Oddar Meanchey province. Clashes then erupted along other parts of the border, involving heavy weaponry, including rockets, artillery, and in the case of the Royal Thai Air Force, F-16 fighter jets. As of yesterday, the fighting had killed at least 34 people and displaced more than 270,000, as per Nikkei Asia. In a press conference yesterday announcing the agreement, Anwar said that in order to stabilize the situation, military commanders from both sides had agreed to meet at 7 a.m. today and that there will be a meeting of the bilateral General Border Committee Cambodia on August 4. Anwar said that Malaysia, as the current chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), 'stands ready to coordinate an observer team to verify and ensure its implementation.' The two governments also appeared to diverge on the question of whether the scheduled meeting of military commanders would take place as scheduled today. Cambodia's Defense Ministry spokesperson said that military leaders held meetings at 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. this morning, while Thai media reports suggested that the meetings were pushed back to 10 a.m. and then 'postponed indefinitely,' which one report put down to the unavailability of two Cambodian generals. Both things obviously can't be true, and by the time this article is published, the situation will likely have become clear, for better or worse. But even if the ceasefire holds, the uncertainty points to the dearth of trust and poor lines of communications between the two sides – something that poses serious challenges to the stabilization of the border region. It also suggests that a conclusive resolution of the long-running border dispute, which has its origins in disagreements over Franco-Siamese border treaties signed in 1904 and 1907, remains an extremely remote prospect. As I noted in a lengthy article yesterday, the dispute touches on deep questions of national identity that have infused contested tracts of border territory with an almost sacred status. In this context, the loss of territory, however insignificant in strategic or economic terms, is something that neither government can countenance if it wants to retain a shred of domestic legitimacy. Any final resolution of the dispute would require both Thai and Cambodian leaders to restore the mutual trust that has been all but destroyed by the conflict. It would then require them to muster the political will to initiate border demarcation efforts and the political capital to make compromises on core nationalist demands. In the absence of any of these conditions, the two governments may well find that there is more political utility in an unsettled border than in a conclusively demarcated one.
