Critics noted on Friday that although the Lee Jae Myung administration has been trying to create a dialogue-friendly atmosphere with North Korea, including its proposal for inter-Korean military talks, the adoption of a human rights resolution has offered Pyongyang more grounds for pushback than openings for dialogue.
The UN General Assembly’s Third Committee adopted a North Korean human rights resolution for the 21st consecutive year on Wednesday. The resolution is slated for final adoption at the UN General Assembly plenary session next month.
Speculation arose that South Korea might abstain from this resolution, given the Lee Jae Myung government’s conciliatory approach towards North Korea. However, South Korea was among the 61 co-sponsoring countries. South Korea had co-sponsored the resolution from 2008 to 2018 but abstained during the Moon Jae-in administration, considering potential impacts on inter-Korean relations. It resumed participation under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration.
The Lee Jae Myung government has been openly demonstrating its willingness to foster dialogue through recent proposals for inter-Korean military talks, repeated expressions of desire to engage with North Korea, and reconsideration of cooperation in border areas, including the Kaesong Industrial Complex.
However, analysts suggest that factors provoking North Korea’s resistance are accumulating, with the adoption of the North Korean human rights resolution following the joint fact sheet from the South Korea-U.S. summit.
On Tuesday, North Korea responded to the fact sheet through a commentary by the Korean Central News Agency, albeit with less intensity than usual. The commentary criticized phrases like complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, technical explanations related to U.S. procurement and deployment of nuclear-powered submarines (SSN), and extended deterrence operations, describing them as evidence of the U.S. and South Korea’s confrontational stance towards North Korea.
Compared to past instances where North Korea immediately issued high-level statements on nuclear and missile issues and key U.S.-North Korea matters, this response is considered more measured and carefully calibrated. However, with the addition of human rights issues, the prospects for dialogue appear to be diminishing further.
North Korea has consistently opposed discussions of human rights issues, viewing them as attempts to undermine its regime and challenges to its leadership. Last year, a foreign ministry spokesperson denounced such efforts as serious political provocations infringing upon national dignity and sovereignty.
While North Korea has recently focused on domestic affairs and minimized external communications, it may resort to strong messaging through commentaries and statements on human rights issues. Experts predict that instead of high-intensity responses, North Korea might use this as a threat element or convey messages through low-intensity criticism and hints of possible provocations.
Professor Park Won Gon of Ewha Womans University’s North Korean Studies Department stated that North Korea has consistently emphasized its unwillingness to engage in inter-Korean dialogue, so even if South Korea had not co-sponsored the human rights resolution, North Korea wouldn’t have reacted. He added that North Korea is likely to convey its message through commentaries or statements on the human rights resolution, as it has done in the past. However, the likelihood of singling out South Korea is low.