North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, recently outlined a policy declaring the existence of two separate states and questioning the necessity of unification. However, there appears to be no internal education provided to citizens regarding this pivotal statement.
On Tuesday, the state-run newspaper Rodong Sinmun published a front-page editorial titled, Mobilizing All Resources for the Autumn Harvest. It reported that agricultural workers and citizens are highly motivated to ensure a successful harvest this year, inspired by the General Secretary’s speech at the 13th meeting of the 14th Supreme People’s Assembly.
The editorial urged citizens to devote all their efforts to the autumn harvest and threshing, emphasizing that rice is socialism and that agricultural workers are the backbone of farming. It called for a heightened determination to achieve successful crop yields, aiming to make 2025 a year of remarkable agricultural achievements.
Interestingly, while the newspaper mentioned Kim’s crucial speech at the Supreme People’s Assembly from the previous day, it notably omitted any reference to his policy on South Korea. Despite the speech running approximately 15,000 characters—with only 400 dedicated to agriculture—the newspaper solely highlighted agricultural achievements, claiming that they fully embraced the speech’s content.
In reality, the majority of Kim’s address focused on relations with South Korea and the U.S. Approximately 6,000 characters were devoted to outlining the current status of relations with these countries, their impact on North Korea’s security and regional dynamics, and the principled stance to be maintained in foreign affairs.
Specifically addressing South Korea, Kim reiterated his two-state stance, emphasizing that unification is unnecessary and not a goal. Regarding the U.S., he recalled good memories with former President Donald Trump, suggesting that dialogue could resume if the U.S. abandons its fixation on denuclearization and acknowledges the current reality.
In North Korea’s political system, the Supreme Leader’s words often become de facto policy. Typically, major speeches prompt citizens to study and implement the leader’s directives, but this familiar pattern was notably absent in this instance.
Analysts suggest that the lack of public education regarding Kim’s new stance toward South Korea and the U.S. may indicate a desire to maintain strategic flexibility for future diplomatic engagement. Additionally, the ambiguous constitutional status of the two-state relationship might be an attempt to avoid internal dissent or unease among neighboring countries, particularly China.
It is likely that citizens will only be instructed to embrace the adversarial two-state ideology after it becomes officially enshrined in the constitution and institutionalized. Some experts speculate that informal discussions and education concerning the new South Korea and U.S. policies may be taking place within elite circles, excluding the general populace.
Hong Min, a senior researcher at the Korea Institute for National Unification, stated that initially, they might provide basic education to officials through re-education programs, later disseminating only essential information to the public via organizational units. He added that once legal and institutional bases—such as the decisions from the 9th Party Congress, party regulations, and constitutional amendments regarding the two-state policy—are established, domestic dissemination could occur rapidly.