Watch Report No.19

Watch Report No.19   Dec. 25, 2019

§Demanding Multi-Faceted, Fact-Based Reports from the Japanese Media

The negotiations between the US and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) for peace and denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula have been at a stalemate. There are rising concerns that an impending collapse of the negotiations may once again heighten the tensions on the peninsula.

The US government is mulling over resumption of the talks. The DPRK, however, is demanding the US abandon its “hostile policy,” which the DPRK contends is imperative to the fulfillment of the Singapore Declaration, and does not seem to be interested at all in negotiations that are not intended to result in agreements providing for mutual actions [1]. In December of 2019, the DPRK made two announcements that it had conducted “crucial tests,” [2] which appear to have been related to Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) technology. This, combined with Kim Jong Un’s past statement that the DPRK would patiently wait until the end of 2019 to “see whether the United States makes a courageous decision or not,” [3] have led to speculations that the DPRK may resume ICBM launch tests sometime soon. Although President Donald Trump has been more or less silent on the short distance missile tests that the DPRK has been conducting since May 2019, he will unlikely treat ICBM launch tests the same. At the December 3, 2019 press conference, Trump referred to the possibility of military action against the DPRK for the first time since the Singapore Summit in June 2019, although he also emphasized that he had been maintaining a good relationship with Kim Jong Un [4].

The view that the DPRK is responsible for the deadlocked negotiations dominates the Japanese society, which is accustomed to observe global affairs through the US/Western lens. The Asahi Shimbun’s December 18, 2019 editorial [5] is a typical example.

This editorial, entitled “North Korea’s Provocations: Returning to the State of Crisis?” explains that the reason for the DPRK’s recent “provocative” behavior is because the DPRK, increasingly impatient over the lack of success of its economic policy, is attempting to get the sanctions eased through bargaining with the US government. The editorial goes on to assert that the DPRK should “drop its outdated way of thinking. So long as it thinks a hardline attitude is the only way to elicit concessions from the international community, there would be no prospect for truly beneficial outcomes to be had. In order to break the deadlock, North Korea must take concrete action toward denuclearization,” and the calls for resumption of working-level talks. The editorial admonishes the Trump administration for having been silent on the DPRK’s short distance missile tests and advises that the administration should “acknowledge its responsibility for the arrogant North Korea” and should not fall for “easy deals” in denuclearization negotiations with the DPRK. The editorial further urges the governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) to “closely coordinate” relevant policies while “keeping the US from deviating,” “tame North Korean provocations,” and “explore the path toward the DPRK’s denuclearization.”

The Asahi’s contentions are not based on facts.

First of all, the Asahi ignores most of the agreements enumerated in the Singapore Declaration, which are the basis of the current US-DPRK negotiations. At the Singapore Summit, the US and DPRK leaders agreed to “establishing new US-DPRK relations,” “building a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula,” “the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” and the return of the remains of US soldiers to the US. Moreover, Trump promised security guarantees to the DPRK, and Kim Jong Un “reaffirmed the commitment to working toward the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” Nonetheless, the Asahi only focuses on the DPRK’s denuclearization, rather than the denuclearization of the entire Korean Peninsula, and disregards “establishing new US-DPRK relations” and “building a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.” If both countries are to fulfill the Singapore Declaration, the DPRK’s demand for US abandonment of its “hostile policy”– including lifting sanctions and halting the US-ROK joint military exercises – should be taken into account in order to “establish new US-DPRK relations” and “build a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula” in addition to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It should not be dismissed as a mere tactic for “bargaining” or “easy deals.”

Furthermore, the Asahi singles out the DPRK’s “provocative behavior” and overlooks the US’s provocative behavior. The joint military exercises the US and the ROK conducted in August 2019 and the delivery to the ROK military of state-of-the-art weapons, such as the F35-B stealth fighter jets the ROK purchased from the US, undeniably qualify as “provocative behavior” from the DPRK’s perspective. The US and the ROK are strengthening their joint military force; the DPRK, which ultimately is still in a state of war with the US, has no choice but to take counter measures for national security. It is incorrect to only criticize the DPRK’s missile tests as “provocative behavior.”

Moreover, one cannot help but wonder whether the “outdated way of thinking” to elicit concessions with a “hardline attitude,” in fact, applies to the US. In comparing the two countries’ progress in the fulfillment of the Singapore Declaration, the DPRK not only halted ICBM launch tests and took decisive actions, such as halting nuclear tests and dismantling a nuclear test site – although critics point out reconstruction is possible – pre-Singapore Summit, but also post-Summit partially dismantled a missile facility and returned the remains of US soldiers. In contrast, the US has merely downsized and suspended the US-ROK joint military exercises. The facts demonstrate that it is the US government, which is unilaterally demanding the DPRK’s denuclearization despite the agreements, that needs to “drop the outdated way of thinking.” Ultimately, the only way to “break the deadlock” may be for the US to “take concrete action” to abandon its “hostile policy” towards the DPRK. Considering that the DPRK developed nuclear weapons for the purpose of deterrence because it was fearful of threats of US invasion, the DPRK’s demand for US abandonment of its “hostile policy” as a condition for the country’s denuclearization is reasonable.

Nevertheless, the Asahi urges the Trump administration not to make “easy deals” while worrying about the administration’s “deviation.” This may be explained by the Asahi’s inaccurate understanding that external pressure forced Kim Jong Un to come to the negotiation table. It was not the sanctions or threats of military attacks that eased the tension leading up to 2017 on the Korean Peninsula. The DPRK claimed it had “completed” its nuclear force prior to turning to talks with the US. This implies that the DPRK only turned to talks because it perceived it had gained an equal footing with the US as a nuclear power. Of course, ROK President Moon Jae In should also be credited for opening a path to the US-DPRK talks by using the Pyeongchang Olympics to improve ROK-DPRK relations and encouraging the DPRK to join the dialogue.

Although the Asahi’s contentions are inconsistent with facts, nevertheless, they may be accepted within Japanese society as a credible viewpoint. In fact, it is not limited to the Asahi; the Japanese media in general have a tendency to report on the Korean Peninsula from a one-dimensional, US point of view. As noted earlier, within Japanese society, the issues pertaining to peace and denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula have been reduced to the issues of the DPRK’s denuclearization, and the view that the DPRK is obligated to act first predominates.

Seeing the reality without the US lens would clarify who deserves to be the target of criticism. Objective analysis of the current situation surrounding the Korean Peninsula is extremely important to achieving denuclearization of the Peninsula. In achieving denuclearization of the Peninsula, civil society, which is the driving force of society as a whole, needs to have a correct understanding of the issues. The media ought to do their job of journalism, which is to accurately report facts from multi-faceted perspectives. (Hajime MAEKAWA)

(Thanks to Toshie OZAKI and Patti WILLIS for translating from Japanese to English and proof-reading.)

[1] “U.S. Should not Dream about Negotiation for Denuclearization before Dropping Its Hostile Policy towards DPRK,” KCNA, November 18, 2019; “Advisor to DPRK Foreign Ministry Issues Statement,” KCNA, November 18, 2019. http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm  Search for the article by date.

[2] “Statement of Spokesman for Academy of National Defense Science Issued,” KCNA, December 8, 2019; “Spokesman for Academy of Defense Science of DPRK Issues Statement,” KCNA, December 14, 2019. http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm Search for the article by date.

[3] “Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un's Policy Speech,” KCNA, April 14, 2019. http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm Search for the article by date.

[4] “Remarks by President Trump and NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg After 1:1 Meeting,” The White House, December 3, 2019. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-nato-secretary-general-stoltenberg-11-meeting-london-united-kingdom/

[5] “Kitachosen no chohatsu. Kincho jotai ni modoru kika” (Tentative Translation: “North Korea’s Provocations: Returning to the State of Crisis?”) Asahi Shimbun, December 18, 2019. https://digital.asahi.com/articles/DA3S14298525.html (in Japanese)