North Korea, nukes and confusion over condolences
Author Profile
The news of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il’s death has been received with much speculation with questions related to the nature of political transition in this isolated country, their future foreign policy and the inside situation. Most importantly, the international community is watching closely the nation’s nuclear policy with raised eyebrows asking, “Who controls the Nukes?”
North Korea signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) in 1985, but announced its withdrawal in 2003. Subsequently, it has been known to have conducted two nuclear tests. The first test was on October 9, 2006 and the second one was on May 25, 2009 after which North Korea claimed to have attained a fully-fledged nuclear status.
Apart from the serious concerns in the international community around what would be North Korea’s next steps, the news of Kim Jong Il's death has been received with uncertainty amongst major nations on how to respond to this occasion. The question being raised is: What should be the appropriate “official” response? Or, in fact, should there be any response at all?
The United States and its close allies in this case, South Korea and Japan, have not yet used what is being referred to as the ‘C’ word in political circles, ‘C’ of course implying ‘condolences’. The US’s immediate response was a statement issued by the White House that it is in “close touch” with its allies in South Korea and Japan and was monitoring the situation closely. While South Korea expressed “sympathy” with the people of North Korea there has been no official statement.
President Obama is stated to have spoken with South Korean president Lee Myung-bak reaffirming Washington's commitment to stability in the region. It was only a day later that US secretary of state Hillary Clinton issued a more refined yet ‘politically correct’ statement urging North Korea's new leadership to embrace “the path of peace”, thus focusing more on the people rather than its leadership, when she stated, “We are deeply concerned with the well-being of the North Korean people and our thoughts and prayers are with them during these difficult times.”
While South Korean military has been placed on an emergency alert, with increased aerial surveillance along the North Korean border, Japan has been following a wait-and-watch approach to formulate an official response, if any, to the North Korean leader's death.
Though there was an ‘expression’ of condolence at a press conference, the intention was soon clarified and corrected as more of a ‘personal statement’ rather than official. China, a close partner of North Korea, offered its condolences to the North Korean people, and so did Russia. Being a new emerging global player, India’s response was much awaited and two days later, after much thought, prime minister Manmohan Singh conveyed his condolences to the family of the deceased leader, as well as, the people and government of North Korea.
This confusion over what might be an appropriate response is explainable once we understand the possible consequences of this decision. Indeed, it can be a tricky situation because any response or no response at all, both can fuel the current situation whether in the Korean peninsula or within the country that is issuing the statement and finally in the international arena, affecting a country’s relation with other important nations. Alternately, no response at all can further neglect the already isolated region, pushing it further into its cocoon making it a situation of ‘one against all’. This is not the message that world powers want to give to the ‘people of North Korea’ at least, if not its leadership.
Hopefully, major nations and North Korea itself will realise the need to initiate dialogue with a genuine intention to do so for the ‘people’ and not the fear of the red button or the ‘passive blackmailing’ around the nukes that has allowed North Korea to remain indifferent to outside pressure. That there will be young leadership in North Korea is certain, but what direction it will take is not. Either way, sanctions alone cannot bring peace and the current scenario is an example of this. It is the lack of information and closed doors that is worrying the world more as one US official who follows the region closely stated, “It is scary how little we know.”
Hopefully, world leaders are able to pursue the path of effective dialogue and communication with the new leadership emerging there and the process enables the people of North Korea to determine their own destiny as they desire, and not one that is written and accepted between nation leaders by way of treaties, absent of the voice and choice of its people.


-AndrewYule.jpg)
Another superbly written article by the author.
She is clear, concise and most importantly very fair in analysing the current situation.
I completely agree with the author in that the 'superpowers' need to be more proactive in approaching North Korea. For how long can world leaders neglect this already isolated region.
I look forward to reading a follow-up piece incorporating the latest developments.
An interesting and well written article highlighting the need for effective dialogue on behalf of the people as opposed to sanctions and threats. In today's nuclear world effective communication and the desire of people needs to be taken into account as opposed to what selfish leaders want.
Looking forward to more articles from the author on pressing issues in global governance and politics.
North Korea has been quite for a long time and it is this silence that is worrying us now. Quite Ironical! I wonder what will happen when this quite nations starts talking? What kind of conversations can we expect between North Korea, a communist nations and US and other democratic nations? Is it a communist VS capitalism debate ? Probably Fukuyama's "End of history" raises doubt? As long as there exists differences , history will be re-written.
Indeed, world leaders need to engage with the international community but North Korea too has to open its doors for dialogue. Either way dialogue is important to avoid isolations of the Korean Peninsula. Request the author to write on Iran and Iraq relations post america withdrawal.
A great piece yet again Ms Rathore. I have read little about North korean leaders, They were quite eccentric personalities, much like other famous dictators.
North Korean government is one of the world's most repressive governments, having up to 200,000 political prisoners according to U.S. and South Korean officials. There is no freedom of press or religion. Virtually every aspect of political, social, and economic life is controlled by the government. The apparent new leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, the youngest son of KIm Jong il, is a recluse. It depends on the new leadership now, that how well they take their country's international relations forward.
Very thought provoking article! wonderfully analysed.
Strange is the ways of political society! we express spontaneous human emotions of grief and joy after studing its implications on OUR stand than share that as a fellow human ,a companion of ours on the 'small'family of earth!
Im naive in politics and perhaps immature to such 'grave diplomatic' issues,but I feel from the heart-like an average human being....
If the North Korea is our enemy,so be it- if it is greiving lets make an emotional bonding and perhaps heal certain 'differences'in the process!
A brilliant anyalitical study by this young[and highly observant]writer.Looking for more from her!
Very good comprehensive article that looks at the situation from various different approaches. The author makes a good point in saying that the world needs to engage more with N Korea at this point because the less the world knows, the less is the incentive to make a change. Very well written, looking forward to more articles from the author.
Excellent analytical piece! Its refreshing to have a new perspective on how politics operate in the international arena in terms of responses of world leaders. I think the best and most succinct point that the author makes is how will people of a nation "... determine their own destiny as they desire, and not one that is written and accepted between nation leaders by way of treaties, absent of the voice and choice of its people." Fantastic point. After this article....I have become a dedicated subscriber to this site.
Post new comment