Powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim rejects appeasement overture by South's new president
Kim Yo Jong's comments suggest again that North Korea, now preoccupied with its expanding cooperation with Russia, has no intentions of returning to diplomacy with South Korea and the U.S. anytime soon. But experts said North Korea could change its course if it thinks it cannot maintain the same booming ties with Russia when the Russia-Ukraine war nears an end.
'We clarify once again the official stand that no matter what policy is adopted and whatever proposal is made in Seoul, we have no interest in it and there is neither a reason to meet nor an issue to be discussed with' South Korea, Kim Yo Jong said in a statement carried by state media.
It's North Korea's first official statement on the government of South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, which took office in early June. In an effort to improve badly frayed ties with North Korea, Lee's government has halted anti-Pyongyang frontline loudspeaker broadcasts, taken steps to ban activists from flying balloons with propaganda leaflets across the border and repatriated North Koreans who were drifted south in wooden boats months earlier.
Kim Yo Jong called such steps 'sincere efforts' by Lee's government to develop ties. But she said the Lee government won't be much different from its predecessors, citing what it calls 'their blind trust' to the military alliance with the U.S. and attempt to 'stand in confrontation' with North Korea. She mentioned the upcoming summertime South Korea-U.S. military drills, which North Korea views as an invasion rehearsal.
North Korea has been shunning talks with South Korea and the U.S. since leader Kim Jong Un's high-stakes nuclear diplomacy with President Donald Trump fell apart in 2019 due to wrangling over international sanctions. North Korea has since focused on building more powerful nuclear weapons targeting its rivals.
North Korea now prioritizes cooperation with Russia by sending troops and conventional weapons to support its war against Ukraine, likely in return for economic and military assistance. South Korea, the U.S. and others say Russia may even give North Korea sensitive technologies that can enhance its nuclear and missile programs.
Since beginning his second term in January, Trump has repeatedly boasted of his personal ties with Kim Jong Un and expressed intent to resume diplomacy with him. But North Korea hasn't publicly responded to Trump's overture.
In early 2024, Kim Jong Un ordered the rewriting of the constitution to remove the long-running state goal of a peaceful Korean unification and cement South Korea as an 'invariable principal enemy.' That caught many foreign experts by surprise because it was seen as eliminating the idea of shared statehood between the war-divided Koreas and breaking away with his predecessors' long-cherished dreams of peacefully achieving a unified Korea on the North's terms.
Many experts say Kim likely aims to guard against South Korean cultural influence and bolster his family's dynastic rule. Others say Kim wants legal room to use his nuclear weapons against South Korea by making it as a foreign enemy state, not a partner for potential unification which shares a sense of national homogeneity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
2 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The ‘Blood Libel' Libel
Whatever quarrels one might have with Senator Bernie Sanders, his thinking would seem to be immune from medieval anti-Semitic influence. Yet last month, after Sanders denounced 'the Netanyahu government's extermination of Gaza,' the pro-Israel group AIPAC attacked Sanders's statement as a 'hate-filled rant' and 'despicable blood libel.' Extraordinary claims—such as the charge that the Jewish senator from Vermont is anti-Semitic to the point of spreading ancient slanders against his own people—require extraordinary evidence. Yet large segments of the conservative and even centrist wings of the American pro-Israel movement have whipped themselves into such a frenzy of paranoia that they are making accusations like this without much effort at justification. Conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is not new, but it has exploded in the post–October 7 era, in which the rising menace of genuine Jew-hatred on left and right alike has been accompanied by a growing chorus of hyperbolic, bad-faith accusations. This dynamic might seem paradoxical, but the two phenomena exist in a natural symbiosis. Anti-Semites often insist they are being targeted merely for criticizing Israel; their defense becomes more effective when many people are, in fact, being called anti-Semitic merely for criticizing Israel. Yair Rosenberg: America's anti-Jewish assassins are making the case for Zionism The hallmark of this style of politics is that, although it does not explicitly state that all criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic, it acts as though that were true. Consider another recent episode. Late last month, The New York Times ran a photo of a child in Gaza, who the accompanying article said was 'born a healthy child' but had recently been 'diagnosed with severe malnutrition.' Later, it added an editor's note clarifying that he 'also had pre-existing health problems,' which should have been noted in the photo caption. Newspapers make errors from time to time, especially while covering wars, when verifying facts is more dangerous and difficult. Yet some conservatives immediately determined not only that the error reflected an institutional bias against Israel—hardly an indisputable premise, given the anger that the Times has generated on the left for its reporting on such topics as sexual violence by Hamas—but that this bias in turn reflected animus against Jews. 'The media were so eager to produce a story about Jews behaving amorally that they dropped all skepticism in the face of a sensationalistic claim from a terrorist group with a known history of lying,' wrote the National Review editor Philip Klein. Noah Pollak, a Trump appointee at the U.S. Department of Education, did not even grant that the error was inadvertent, charging on X that the paper had deliberately published a falsehood: 'This is a really strange way of saying 'We ran a front page blood libel claiming Israel is starving a baby to death, but it's not true and we actually knew it wasn't true at the time, but it promoted hatred of Jews so we ran it anyway.'' Likewise, Seth Mandel, writing in Commentary, treated the error as an act of anti-Semitic malice: 'Pointing to a suffering child and saying 'the Jews did this' when in fact the Jews did no such thing is an intentional act.' As with the Sanders episode, none of these critics offered any explanation as to why the Times— a newspaper whose executive editor, along with many staffers, is Jewish—would be institutionally committed to whipping up anti-Semitic animus. The proliferation of the term blood libel as a rhetorical tic is especially revealing. The blood libel is a medieval conspiracy theory that posits that Jews murder Christian children in order to use their blood in religious ceremonies. It was used for centuries to incite murder against Jews. My wife's grandmother once told me that her mother had a vivid memory of being a child in 19th-century Russia, hiding under a bed and watching a Cossack plant a dead child in her family's home to blame on the Jews. To claim that Israel murders Arab children for religious ends would be a blood libel. And because anti-Semitic ideas mutate over time, some forms of obsessive hatred of Israel assign the Jewish state an almost demonic place in the imagination. Anti-Semitism can express itself as an inability to process Israel's actions, whether good or bad, in the terms one would use for other nations. But to the extent that the outrage over civilian deaths in Gaza is not categorically different from that surrounding, say, the American counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, Israel's critics are treating it as a normal state. Some elements of the contemporary pro-Israel right have refused to accept that. They have, instead, repurposed the phrase blood libel to cast almost any complaint about the Israeli war effort as anti-Semitic. Because arguments about the scope of war inherently revolve around the propriety of violence, this tactic has limitless application. This rhetorical move is striking in its resemblance to the style of the illiberal left. If you identify your own political position with a vulnerable group, you can accuse anybody who disagrees of opposing the group, thus circumventing the need to defend your position on the merits. The most common fallacy associated with this form of backward reasoning is to assume that any argument a bigot might use is bigoted. Because racists oppose affirmative action, its defenders sometimes assume all opponents of affirmative action are racist; likewise, because anti-Semites hate Israel, some of its defenders treat opposition to Israel as presumptively anti-Semitic. In some cases, the homage is explicit. Some campus activists have demanded that pro-Israel Jews receive the kind of protective treatment that university administrators have previously extended to students from, or speaking on behalf of, other marginalized groups. (Others have merely asked that schools fairly apply content-neutral rules to activists who seize common spaces or shout down pro-Israel speakers.) This would be a logical demand if you believe that illiberal discourse norms have benefited minority students and fostered tolerance. But if you believe that they've generated resentment without helping their supposed beneficiaries, as members of the pro-Israel right generally do, then it is a strange racket to try to get in on. The Trump administration has turned these illiberal concepts into official government policy. Its higher-education agenda revolves around the use of pretextual charges of anti-Semitism to withhold funding and subject universities to political interference. It has detained immigrant students for criticizing Israel and worked with right-wing activists to target protesters and issue draconian demands for 'reform.' How could a movement prone to hair-trigger charges of anti-Semitism identify itself so closely with this administration? President Donald Trump has welcomed an anti-Semitic and even Nazi-curious faction into his coalition, normalizing rhetoric that not long ago would have been disqualifying in a Republican administration. (Kingsley Wilson, a Defense Department spokesperson, has dabbled in anti-Semitic memes, including attacking the memory of Leo Frank, perhaps the most famous victim of anti-Semitic violence in U.S. history.) Trump himself has routinely discussed Jews in crude terms, as money-obsessed and primarily loyal to Israel. In fact, the alliance has a certain logic to it. The pro-Israel right is not so much expanding the definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism as shifting it, so that it covers far more criticism of Israel and far less behavior that would traditionally have fit the bill. After Trump criticized unethical bankers as 'shylocks'—drawing a wrist-slap from the Anti-Defamation League, which has otherwise supported his campus crackdown—the Commentary editor John Podhoretz wrote on X, 'Trump bombed Iran. He can say Shylock 100 times a day forever as far as I'm concerned.' Here Podhoretz is following in the tradition of his father, Norman, who preceded John as editor of Commentary, once an esteemed journal of Jewish thought. Thirty years ago, after Pat Robertson published a conspiratorial book arguing that a tiny sect of 'European bankers' had controlled world affairs for decades, Norman Podhoretz defended Robertson from charges of anti-Semitism in a lengthy essay. 'In my view,' he wrote, 'Robertson's support for Israel trumps the anti-Semitic pedigree of his ideas about the secret history of the dream of a new world order.' Michael Powell: The double standard in the human-rights world At the time, Robertson's crankish views may have seemed marginal enough that his allies could pretend they were tolerable. The door that Podhoretz cracked open for one nutty televangelist has since swung wide open for hordes of obsessive anti-globalists, Nazi-meme appreciators, and other enemies of the Jews. Building a coalition united by its total indifference to Palestinian human rights requires teaming with some people who may lack a certain moral refinement when it comes to the Jews. But you go to political war with the coalition you have, not the coalition you wish you had. This alliance harms the Jews in two obvious ways. First, it provides cover for the legitimization of a strain of far-right anti-Semitism that had been frozen out of mainstream political influence since the demise of the America First movement at the start of World War II. Second, it weakens the fight against left-wing anti-Semitism by diluting the charge through overuse. Flooding the public square with counterfeit accusations devalues the currency. And allowing the cause to be turned into cover for a crackdown on the left that is at best loosely related to defending Jews inevitably subjects the idea of opposing anti-Semitism to cynicism. The pro-Israel right's response to that critique is, of course, to label it as anti-Semitic. 'Jews are being threatened with consequences for being seen as exercising undue influence over campus life,' writes the Manhattan Institute legal-policy fellow Tal Fortgang. American culture has passed through an era in which elements of the social-justice left sought to shut down opposition to their agenda by branding disagreement as bigotry. Members of the pro-Israel right, who gained power in part by riding the backlash against the excesses of left-wing illiberalism, have now decided to borrow its techniques. Can they truly not imagine that they will generate a backlash of their own?
CNN
32 minutes ago
- CNN
Hungarian Foreign Minister on his Country's Agenda and Ukraine's Bid to Join the E.U.
"Hungarian people have been paying the price of this war for too long time now, although we don't have any kind of responsibility." Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó on Hungary's agenda, and Ukraine's bid to join the E.U.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump takes an unexpected walk on the White House roof to survey new projects
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's day began typically enough, with a television interview and a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Then it took an unexpected and unusual turn when he appeared on the roof of the White House's West Wing. Late Tuesday morning, Trump emerged from a door connected to the State Dining Room and stepped onto the roof above the press briefing room and west colonnade that walls the Rose Garden. He spent nearly 20 minutes surveying the rooftop and the grounds below, including a newly paved makeover of the Rose Garden. 'Taking a little walk,' Trump shouted back. 'It's good for your health.' Trump walked with a small group that included James McCrery, architect of the newly announced $200 million ballroom project. They moved slowly, with Trump frequently gesturing and pointing at the roof and grounds. Several times, he wandered toward the corner nearest the press corps, waving and cupping his hands to shout responses to shouted questions. At one point, he said he was looking at 'another way to spend my money for this country.' Later, near the end of his appearance on the roof, Trump was asked what he was going to build. He quipped, 'Nuclear missiles.' The unexpected walk on the rooftop comes as Trump looks to leave a lasting footprint on what's often referred to as 'The People's House.' He has substantially redecorated the Oval Office through the addition of golden flourishes and cherubs, presidential portraits and other items and installed massive flagpoles on the north and south lawns to fly the American flag. And last week, his administration announced that construction on a massive ballroom will begin in September and be ready before Trump 's term ends in early 2029. While Trump appeared on the West Wing, the White House has said the ballroom will be where the 'small, heavily changed, and reconstructed East Wing currently sits.' While rare, there have been times through the years where presidents ventured out onto — and even slept on — the White House roof. To promote renewable energy, President Jimmy Carter installed 32 solar panels on the West Wing roof in the 1970s. The panels were removed during the Reagan administration.
