Countering Paul Kim's Misinformation (dprkstudies.org)

COUNTERING PAUL KIM'SMISINFORMATION

The 2003 January 10 edition of The Washington Post carried a story entitled, North Korea: South Korean Perspective, which was the transcript of an NPR question and answer session with Paul Kim, Former Director of the Korean-American Peace Institute (a pro-North Korea organization).

Kim made several answers that were blatantly incorrect. In fact, the type of misinformation and complete disregard for facts is exactly the type of pseudo-journalism in South Korea that causes confusion and spreads anti-Americanism. Some correction is called for.

QUESTION: “[Are recent North Korean actions] simply a case of Korean pride run amok?… Is this whole nuclear threat based on the North Korean's "hurt feelings" that the rest of the world doesn't treat them with the respect that they think they deserve?”

PAUL KIM: “…They feel they have not been heard by the Bush Administration so they are trying to send a signal.”

NORTH KOREAN STUDIES: Wrong. In reality, North Korea does not like the no-nonsense answer of the Bush administration – they do not like being held accountable for their actions, something Clinton and Kim Dae Jung had been - and now Rho Moo-hyun is - unwilling to address. The difference is significant.

QUESTION: “Don’t most Koreans realize that this anti-American feeling that they’re fostering is somewhat juvenile, extremely hypocritical and ultimately very dangerous?…”

PAUL KIM: “… I think it is not helpful to just label Koreans "juvenile" or "hypocritical." Relationships between countries are always changing; and especially when it is felt that a "foreign" country is above "law", any red-blooded American would be up in arms. Korean people are some of the most literate and well-read; and recent American policies on Korean peninsula are seen as arbitrary and perhaps not to be best interest of Korean people. The way for American policy is to persuade the Koreans that this isn't so: that we have their best interest in heart as well as our own security concerns.”

NORTH KOREAN STUDIES: First, very many Koreans have been juvenile and hypocritical – death threats over speed skating and jokes by Jay Leno? The first step in correcting a problem is admitting to it, yet Kim is in denial. Massive demonstrations based on misinformation and outright lies? Complaining of the U.S.-ROK SOFA, but ignorant ROK SOFAs with other nations that actually are unfair? [Hypocrisy]. Not helpful for who? It is truthful, and Americans should know about it. Second, what law did Americans break in this case? None. No law was broken at all. The word “felt” in Kim’s response deserves special attention, since it correctly implies emotion, not logic or facts. Hence juvenile. Third, while Koreans may be well-read, it amounts to being well-versed in misinformation. The fact that North Korean defectors are openly calling for the isolation of North Korea with the hope of causing that regime to fail is a dramatic contrast to those in the South saying that the North is not a threat. The U.S. is primarily concerned about a nuclear arms race in Asia – South Koreans benefit directly from U.S. policy in this regard, if they admit it or not.

QUESTION: “Why is North Korea doing this when [Kim Jong Il] knows it presents an ultimatum to the rest of the world…”

PAUL KIM: “…North Korea sees the US as its biggest threat, especially after 9/11 when President Bush named North Korea a member of the "axis of evil". When that happened, North Korea took that as a sign that US was not interested in following the guidelines of the 1994 Agreed Framework which was to lead to a political reconciliation between the US and North Korea (NK)… But they want to be guaranteed that US will not attack them, and being named a member of the "axis of evil" does not guarantee them that.”

NORTH KOREAN STUDIES: Paul Kim irresponsibly dismisses the possible reasons as to why North Korea might feel threatened. They support terrorists. They have not kept agreements – agreements that in 1994 prevented the U.S. from a likely attack on North Korean nuclear facilities. North Korea claimed the Feb. 2002 “axis of evil” statement – mere words, and relatively mild compared to North Korean rhetoric – was a sign that the 1994 Agreed Framework was being abandoned by the U.S. The U.S. took North Korea’s 1998 uranium enrichment program the same way. Which one – words or a uranium enrichment program – is more significant? (Note that this has been independently confirmed by the Pakistani confession.) Or came first? Any regime that lets tens of thousands starve to death per year while developing nuclear weapons, missiles, purchasing new military equipment, and holding multi-million dollar birthday bashes for the “Dear Leader” is evil. The best was for them to not feel threatened is to not help terrorists, and to keep nuclear agreements. It could be called passive cooperation – just stop doing things that might bring destruction.

QUESTION: “Do you also think if South Korea sways away from being a US puppet, that the chances are greater for reunification?”

PAUL KIM: “The recent show of "anti-Americanism" perhaps is a reflection of this sense: that US policy in Korea is geared towards fulfilling American interests, without taking in South Korean interests. For example, when President Bush came in office, one of the first things he did was to disparage President Kim Dae Jung's "sunshine policy," without realizing fully what it would mean… Washington's politics, which sways from calling North Korea an axis of evil and then says they do not have any intention of attacking them. Seoul feels that the US policy on Korea needs to be more consistent.”

NORTH KOREAN STUDIES: Wrong. The question is also flawed – the security needs of the U.S. and South have been and, in reality, are aligned. Realizing and acting on those shared regional security concerns do not make South Korea a “puppet.” The recent anti-Americanism is based on ignorance, misinformation, and outright lies. The Sunshine Policy failed – it takes two for cooperation, and North Korea has repeatedly and consistently rejected that policy. To try it was noble; to continue when it has obviously failed is foolish, dangerous, and irresponsible. The problem with Kim's above statement is that the Bush administration fully realized that the Sunshine Policy has failed because North Korea has rejected it; the South Koreans still, for the most part, fail to realize this. Finally, saying the North is evil does not mean one will attack. If that were so, the North would have already attacked the South a thousand times over. The implication Kim makes above is absurd at best.

QUESTION: “How much of the current situation is because of the new Korean administration and a general desire for reconciliation with the North, and how much of it is a result of specific incidents involving US soldiers, like the traffic accident where two people were run over?”

PAUL KIM: “… I think the tension between US and ROK goes back at least 10 years. In 1990-1 when NK and SK signed a de-nuclearization pact… But then President Bush decided it was going too fast and stopped South Korea and Japan from their fast track negotiations towards normalization. The result of that brake job was the first NK nuke crisis… So there has always been a desire on part of countries surrounding the Korean peninsula to reach some sort of reconciliation with North Korea and put the past behind them. It seems US has the hardest time dealing with this reality.”

NORTH KOREAN STUDIES: The above would be humorous if the subject were not so serious, and if that factually incorrect and logically flawed argument were not so pervasive. The previous South Korean administrations were never on the road to reconciliation, and in fact “put the brakes” on negotiations three distinct times during the talks leading to the 1994 Agreed Framework. Paul Kim completely misses the gist of U.S. policy toward the North: if other nations want to reconcile with North Korea or not is not the point – the North Korean response is. The reality is that North Korea simply cannot allow engagement beyond accepting aid. Why? Engagement brings social interaction, which brings information – when North Koreans learn that that aid is not tribute to their powerful nation, along with the scores of other lies, the regime will end. Policy makers that ignore this reality are doomed to chronic misinterpretation and being baffled by North Korean behavior.

QUESTION: “We know that North Korea does not and will not negotiate in good faith or abide by its agreements….”

PAUL KIM: “I'm not sure how you can make that kind of a judgment. The 1994 Agreed Framework was working well. Even the Bush Admin has not said the NK have developed a weapon, nor even tried to reprocess uranium; they had bought the material. On the other hand, the Bush Administration began to dismantle the 1994 Agreement, and moved the goal post. So who's to say who doesn't negotiate in good faith. One question is to ask who has more to lose if the 1994 agreed Framework doesn't work. I'd think it is North Korea, since they really need to have Western aid and technology to survive in the term.”

NORTH KOREAN STUDIES: This reveals the basic misunderstanding of North Korean actions that we outline of above. First, the statement in the question is completely correct – North Korea has historically broken more agreements than it has kept. The facts indicate that deals are made with no intention of keeping them. Take any agreement with North Korea in the last decade as evidence. That is called a pattern. Second, North Korea admitted to a nuclear weapon development program – that violates the 1994 Agreed Framework, period. Paul Kim dismisses that fact. That means that North Korea, not Bush, “began to dismantle” the agreement. And finally, the answer to Kim’s final comment is that North Korea has everything to gain from the deal not going through – the fact is that social engagement threatens North Korea. It appears that the North feels self-imposed isolation is safer than engagement.

QUESTION: “There is growing concern, regarding the increasing animosity towards the American military presence in S. Korea, particularly, after the unfortunate accident involving the death of the 2 young ladies. What do you see, as the best way for our government, to mend it's relationship, with the Korean people? Is it still possible to salvage our countries ties?”

PAUL KIM: “…This current round is about equality in relationship. And it seems to me Washington and Seoul should see themselves as equals. Seoul should be treated like Tokyo. But as of now, at least among many policy makers, there is a tendency to treat Korea as a Cold War outpost.”

NORTH KOREAN STUDIES: Kim is unable to answer the question, and instead side-steps it. The answer is that the anti-Americanism will not “go away” until South Korean society matures. The recent demonstrations have made this point painfully clear. Many Koreans call for the SOFA to be revised to be fairer to Korea – like the U.S.-Japan SOFA. What the fail to realize is that the sections they want revised are already the same as the U.S.-Japan SOFA. Kim makes a similar mistake by comparing U.S.-Japanese relations to U.S.-Korean relations. South Korean civil society has a long way to go.

QUESTION: “Just how brainwashed are the North Korean people? From what I read the are constantly pummeled with propaganda but it has to be quite evident to them by their growling stomachs that they do not live in the paradise the government says they do.”

PAUL KIM: “From having visited there, it isn't a matter of being brainwashed (perhaps the level of being brainwashed by billion dollars worth of ads has greater impact on us), but living in a society that is fairly regimented. But the last decade has seen great changes for the better, and it is improving. I think it is bad policy to think that the other person cannot change, when facts tell us that they are changing!”

NORTH KOREAN STUDIES: We have to wonder what alternate reality Paul Kim lives in when he’s not spreading misinformation on NPR. North Koreans spent approximately 30 percent of their education studying Kim Il Sung and related subject. They are told fantastic stories about Kim Il Sung’s powers, etc. It is brainwashing, and it is in fact a cult. Listen to defectors, not those who’ve had the dog and pony show. The facts – North Korean regime actions – show that any changes they are making are not towards engagement, but towards disengagement.

Kim’s responses highlight many of the problems in South Korean policy towards North Korea, especially emotionalism and being able to apply facts in a logical manner, i.e., understanding. Our comments may seem rather caustic – but they are correct, and we will back them up for those with specific questions.

Blog