[Wang Son-taek] Subtler signals in Kim Yo-jong's statement

Korea Herald

3 days ago

On Monday and Tuesday, Kim Yo-jong, deputy director of the North Korean Workers' Party and sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, issued statements filled with strong and resolute language targeting both South Korea and the United States. She declared that, regarding South Korea, 'We have completely exited the era of perceiving them as compatriots,' and told the US, 'Contact between North Korea and the US is only America's wish.' At first glance, these remarks might suggest that North Korea is maintaining a hardline policy stance toward both Seoul and Washington. However, taking these statements at face value would be a misjudgment. There exist dual contexts beneath the content; the form itself cannot simply be evaluated as entirely hardline. Notably, these statements were made voluntarily by North Korea at a moment when there was neither an external provocation nor any signs of internal turmoil.
Typically, North Korea issues such pronouncements in response to external military stimuli or in reaction to strong diplomatic pressures. This time, however, the remarks seem to be reacting instead to conciliatory gestures from South Korea and the US. Thus, the real purpose of these statements is not merely to reaffirm their stance, but also to deny the possibility of dialogue outright. Rather, they are preemptively setting the parameters for future bilateral or multilateral relations and making their own political and security conditions explicitly clear to the outside world.
Since taking office on June 4, the Lee Jae Myung administration has pursued multiple initiatives to improve relations with the North: halting loudspeaker broadcasts across the border, banning anti-North Korea leaflets, considering individual tourism programs and working toward normalizing the Ministry of Unification. According to Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, 'The era of tit-for-tat confrontation is over.' Collectively, these moves send an explicit message of a new approach, differing significantly from the previous administration. While Kim Yo-jong dismissed these changes as 'not even worth evaluating,' the fact that she addressed each measure in detail is notable. Had they truly been meaningless, she would not have taken the effort to include them in a formal statement.
Some experts interpret these comments as North Korea making clear that it has no interest whatsoever in resuming dialogue with the South. However, such an interpretation may be overly hasty and insufficiently nuanced. A closer reading of Kim's wording reveals that Pyongyang has been closely monitoring recent policy moves and messages from both Seoul and Washington. Her reference to the Lee administration's assessment of the past few years as 'the worst or most foolish of times' expresses agreement that the administration of former President Yoon Suk Yeol had taken a hardline stance toward North Korea. The North is closely watching how the new government in Seoul seeks to adjust the preconditions for inter-Korean relations and, rather than seeking a full severance, is likely signaling an 'indirect response' and a readiness to seize initiative if dialogue does eventually occur under favorable circumstances.
The message toward the United States is strong, but more proactive in signaling compared to the one directed at South Korea. Kim Yo-jong brushed off dialogue efforts made by the Trump administration as 'nothing but an American wish,' yet repeatedly expressed positive assessments of President Trump and his administration, saying things such as 'It would be better to explore new approaches,' 'A confrontation between two nuclear states benefits no one,' and 'The personal relationship between the leaders is not bad.' While they remain unwilling to engage in another round of talks targeting 'denuclearization,' they hint at the possibility of new contact if the US acknowledges North Korea as a de facto nuclear state.
In this latest statement, North Korea defines itself as an 'irreversible nuclear power' and firmly declares it will not enter negotiations that do not recognize this status. Yet, by stating, 'We are open to any option,' they leave open the possibility that the door to dialogue with the US is not completely closed — so long as new terms and approaches are genuinely on the table. This careful and conditional strategy reflects lessons learned from previous talks and signifies a potential 'reset,' not a complete rupture. It illustrates a calibrated posture designed to manage both risk and opportunity.
It is difficult to decipher North Korea's true intentions. Pyongyang often acts unpredictably and is accustomed to using deliberately ambiguous and layered language. Prudence and a reserved attitude are therefore needed when predicting its next steps. But to dismiss this statement as a mere declaration of permanent severance — and any efforts to resume dialogue as mere wishful thinking, as North Korea might cynically claim — could be a grave diplomatic silliness. Rather, we must seriously consider the possibility that these signals are part of a broader effort by Pyongyang to reconfigure its external relationships when favorable conditions come.
Saving face and maintaining dignity are essential pillars of North Korean diplomatic language and its foreign policy psychology. Given this, while the statement appears harsh and aggressive, it may not be intended as a total and final rejection of all diplomatic contact. North Korea continues to emphasize its position as a rule-setter in diplomatic negotiations and signals that contact is still possible — as long as it takes place within its preferred and carefully calibrated framework. That kind of approach might provide a possible reason for North Korea to join dialogues, and South Korea and the US can determine the scenario.
In summary, Kim Yo-jong's statement loudly declares a break, but it also includes efforts to monitor counterpart reactions, control diplomatic framing and set preconditions. What is needed now is not to fixate solely on North Korea's abrasive wording, but to carefully analyze the multiple meanings embedded within. Interpreting why, when and in what context this statement was made is also crucial for effective policymaking. Sometimes, what North Korea does not say is far more significant than what it does. This latest statement offers a textbook case in that regard.