[The Editors' Verdict] Death of Fisheries Official: How Should the Issue Be Resolved?

Hong Min, Director of the North Korea Research Division at the Korea Institute for National Unification

North Korea is rapidly focusing on managing the aftermath of the shooting incident involving government official Mr. Lee. It appears to recognize the gravity of the repercussions this incident may bring. The charges of killing an unarmed civilian and mutilating the body are violations of international norms and inhumane acts that will fully attract international condemnation. Since the release of the United Nations (UN) report on North Korean human rights in 2014, international concern over North Korean human rights has only increased. Human rights are a critical Achilles' heel for the North Korean regime and the status of its 'supreme dignity.'

Meanwhile, the necessity for situation management also seems significant. Currently, North Korea is in a state of paralysis in terms of policy maneuvering both domestically and internationally. First, the situation is uncertain following the U.S. presidential election. Since the beginning of the year, North Korea has declared a long-term stance on North Korea-U.S. negotiations and has been closely monitoring U.S. domestic politics. It is uncertain what kind of North Korea policy the next U.S. administration will adopt or whether it will inherit the existing North Korea-U.S. agreements and negotiation framework. Internally, economic activities have been severely restricted due to COVID-19, floods, and sanctions against North Korea. With the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Workers' Party approaching, it is difficult to present any achievements. Ultimately, there is no need to escalate tensions even in inter-Korean relations.

Nevertheless, responsibility for the loss of life is not easily resolved. North Korea excluded the intention of the military high command and party leadership by attributing the decision to the '(navy) commander’s resolution.' However, it is hard to believe, based on a reasonable command structure, that the decision to shoot an unarmed civilian was made solely at the commander level. At minimum, it would be difficult to carry out without the decision of the navy command leadership and the General Staff Department, which directly commands it. Of course, after the defector’s crossing incident in Kaesong on July 19, North Korea took strong disciplinary and follow-up measures for the military’s lax guard posture, and recently arrested and severely punished illegal border crossers in the North Korea-China border cities, isolating the cities. These factors likely heightened the fear of frontline units regarding guard and quarantine. There is room for frontline units to naturally choose excessive vigilance.

However, regardless of the 'differences' between the two Koreas, explanations must be provided. Political and technical considerations are necessary for both sides to smoothly resolve the situation going forward. First, clear steps must be set and followed. The first step is the joint search or search cooperation for recovering the body. An official request to the North for this was primarily necessary. Since the supreme leader has expressed apology and regret, it would not be easy for the North to refuse search cooperation. On the 27th, North Korea warned against territorial sea incursions under the pretext of search. To prevent such situations, responsible attitudes and cooperation from the North should have been requested from the search stage itself.

The next step is to demand additional explanations from the North or a joint investigation. Of course, a joint investigation may begin during the body search process. However, some time focusing on the body search is necessary. Fortunately, if the body is recovered, North Korea’s part in the mutilation can be partially explained. Additional explanations for the remaining differences and, if necessary, joint investigations and dialogue between the two Koreas to prevent recurrence can follow. If the issue is not resolved, a joint investigation between the two Koreas is essential. The differences in explanations between the two Koreas can only be resolved through a joint investigation. Depending on the results of the joint investigation, the next stage involves inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation for preventing recurrence (activation of the Military Joint Committee, additional military agreements, etc.).

Although it is late now, it is appropriate to request joint search or at least limited search cooperation immediately. If a joint investigation is demanded right away and the North is reluctant to accept it, the problem could become mired in whether to accept the 'joint investigation.' There is an order to things, and legitimacy can be firmly secured through that order. Recovering the body may not be easy. However, it is necessary for the two Koreas to first confirm sincerity in resolving the issue through search cooperation and then naturally proceed step-by-step to the next necessary demands. It is important to take a moment to plan and prepare such a phased approach.

Hong Min, Director of North Korea Research Division, Korea Institute for National Unification