The Project

The main pattern of response from mainstream South Korean media on North Korea is generally emotional and negative. However, it is mainly the right-wing media who are covering North Korea with huge concern.

South Korea’s three leading newspapers – ‘Cho-sun’, ‘Dong-a’, and ‘Jung-ang’ - are all right-wing newspapers. They all have a special section on North Korea on their websites. However, they all view the North Korean issue from different angles. ‘Dong-a’ takes a hard-line stance on North Korea, as does ‘Cho-sun’, whereas ‘Chung-ang’ takes a more moderate and rational position.

With regards to the left-wing media, there are two main broadsheet newspapers: ‘Hankyoreh’, ‘Kyoung-Hyang’, and their responses are also emotional and sympathetic to North Korea. But the left-wing media tends to be more concerned with South Korea’s social issues, rather than North Korean issues, and this tendency has been used by the right-wing media to criticise the left’s stance on North Korea issues. 

If the grenade explodes, everyone will die. What is North Korea for us? Consider this analogy: assume you are rich, and you have a brother who is blackmailing you, and intimidating you with weapons. A person involved in finance told me, a few days ago, that "such relations like this can lead to fatal consequences. Obviously, things that have been inappropriate in the past have to be revised, but the policy regarding to North Korea needs to consider the balance of control". South must see North as a potential partner, for complete nationhood, not as an enemy.

However, if little brother explodes a toxic grenade, the rich big brother’s home won’t be safe. And if the situation reaches this point, the gangster little brother dooms himself also.

But little brother is not stupid. While big brother earned a considerable amount of money by doing practices that were accepted by the global community, little brother chose communism over capitalism - complete closure instead of openness - and he went into the world of inheritance, thereby becoming a gangster; but, we must remember, he is not doing these things to die, but to live. 

These days, little brother’s hostile provocations have passed a certain threshold. He has increased the production of weapons of mass destruction and the speed at which he produces them, taking advantage of the Lee administration’s ‘sunshine policy’.

Instead of building strong walls, the two last pro-gangster administrations worked to tear them down, and Roh administration worked hard for detaching ‘war time commanding control’ from the US for the sake of more military independence. It makes m wonder what was President Roh’s Autonomous defence argument was for? Even now I have not got an answer for it. Walter Sharp, chief commander of the US troops in Korea, promises that even when war commanding control returns to South Korea in 2012, the nuclear umbrella on South Korea will be strongly maintained. I hope it will do, because North’s nuclear weapon is beyond our conventional military, economic, and technological strength, and therefore we need to rely on the promise of a nuclear umbrella, but the USA’s promise of this is not stated on the US-South Korea Mutual defence treaty, it is only confirmed by each country’s government’s vocal confirmations. The Lee-Obama alliance must achieve a solid agreement for both sides’ sake. Article: Donga Il-bo: Bae in-Jun Column (Columnist in chief for Dong-a Daily) on 22nd April 2009

It is hard for me to bear the thought of seeing my brother being beaten by the UN Security Council’s sanctions, and if I need to join in – due to criticisms and peer pressure – the state of my heart becomes even more unbearable. But when my brother does behave like a lawless person by doing something that is beyond what most people would tolerate, I am compelled to join the action against him.

While welcoming the UN Sanctions on North Korea, we in the south at the same time feel burdened by participating in it. What worries me, though, is the North Koreans’ reaction to this. Let us remind ourselves how North Koreans reacted this April, when the UN Security Council released the general secretary’s statement on its long range missile test: it became a laughing stock for requesting an apology from the UN.

Furthermore, on 16th June, the US-Korea bilateral summit will reconfirm the installation of a nuclear umbrella over South Korea under the name of ‘extended deterrent’. 

The North Korean state news agencies warn that if America’s nuclear umbrella provision is confirmed, the risk of a nuclear war in the Korean peninsular will rapidly increase. This message is a clue that North Korea might respond to further Security Council resolutions and the reconfirmation of the nuclear umbrella with further tests of long range missiles, or provocative military action against South Korea. 

The minister of defence recently issued a statement that "wherever North Korea attacks, the south will retaliate according to battle procedure": what a politically inconsiderate statement. What if North attacks South with artilleries? According to this minister we may have to attack North Korean mainland. It is just horrible to imagine. 

The US has intimated that it is ready to have dialogue with the North Koreans, whilst taking a hardline position on the Security Council resolution process. There is a possibility that North-American dialogue can open, but this depends on North-Korea releasing two US journalists it has currently incarcerated. South Korea also needs to provide some carrots (like Americans do), instead of abusing a word of provocation. We should have specific policy aim on North Korea issues, such as a restoration of bilateral dialogues, and should save the word of provocation unless it is necessary. We need to do this, not due to the greater cause of peace and stability in North East Asia, but because we have one thing that we need to prevent at any cost: ‘the second Korean war’. 

Therefore, we need to recognise the reality, which is that North and South relations based on mutualism are not likely to work, as the south is viewed by the world as a ‘have’, while the north is a ‘have not’.  

In this relationship – with such extended unequal status quo – mutualism is not an appropriate model to apply. The UN Sanction on North Korea is a tool, rather than an object, but we shall not forget that their nuclear weapon is getting stronger as we isolate them deeper and deeper.: article: Kim Young-Hee (Chief Journalist for international News for Chung-ang) on 12 Jun 2009.

ERIC HAN
TRANSLATOR