Some things don’t change. On December 12, the US State Department left the DPRK on the list of state sponsors of terrorism along with Cuba, Iran and Syria.
What are the accusations?
The DPRK was first included in this list in 1988 following the mid-air explosion of a South Korean plane in route from Abu Dhabi to Bangkok. In October, 2008, the US administration removed the DPRK from the list after it agreed to begin negotiations on the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. However, in 2017, North Korea was again added to the list after the assassination of Kim Jong Nam, the half-brother of the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, in Malaysia by Pyongyang’s agents, as well as the arrest of the US citizen Otto Warmbier.
Restrictions such as the controlled supply of dual-use goods, a ban on the supply of weapons and restrictions on US humanitarian aid are imposed on state sponsors of terrorism. The status can be revoked if the designated country meets a number of requirements, such as refusing to support any acts of international terrorism for six months and providing guarantees that it will not support terrorism in the future.
However, the US State Department’s annual report notes that North Korea has repeatedly supported acts of international terrorism in the nine years since its status was revoked. Some examples are provided; it is mentioned that four soldiers of the Japanese Red Army, wanted by the Tokyo government for participating in the hijacking of a Japan Airlines plane in 1970, continue to hide in the North. In addition, Tokyo continues to seek complete information on the fate of numerous Japanese citizens who are believed to have been abducted by government agencies in the North in the 1970s and 1980s. Finally, North Korea is not cooperating sufficiently with the United States in the fight against international terrorism.
What is the proof?
Now let us answer some simple questions.
- Is it known that in the 21st century, North Korea openly supported terrorist movements, supplied them with money or weapons or provided its territory for the training and education of militants? The answer is no. Moreover, even though the yellow press periodically wrote about the supply of North Korean weapons to Gaza or using North Korean engineers to design or build tunnels during the Arab-Israeli conflict, evidence of such was apparently not found – otherwise it would have appeared on the list of new accusations.
- Does the Kim Jong Nam murder case expose North Korea as a state practicing political terrorism? No, because during the trial and investigation, the case collapsed under the weight of oddities and inconsistencies and the DPRK’s guilt has not been proven. One of the suspects was released (although the court specifically stated that this was not an acquittal) and the other was reclassified to a less serious charge, which allowed her to be released from prison ahead of schedule. Although Interpol Red Notices are still in effect for the four North Korean citizens who left Malaysia, they are not guilty, but suspects. All in all, an objective investigation indicates that the brother of the country’s leader was rather removed by anti-North Korean forces.
- Is North Korea refusing to cooperate on anti-terrorism issues? No, and as you can see, it is cooperating, but not sincerely enough. This is a very distinct formulation, as it turns out that it is up to the Americans to decide how sincerely cooperation is conducted and there are no objective criteria.
- Is the issue of abducted Japanese citizens related to terrorism? No, this is a separate problem, which at the current stage boils down to the fact that the DPRK’s claim that the abducted citizens died does not evoke a response in Japanese society, which wants to believe that these people are still alive. It is a sad story, but there are no formal signs of terrorism in it.
- Is the story of the arrest of US citizen Otto Warmbier related to terrorism? No, because the student’s crime actually took place and, as a result of an incorrectly chosen line of defence, he himself pushed the charge to subversion instead of hooliganism. After the verdict was announced, the young man unsuccessfully tried to commit suicide. The DPRK authorities can be accused of not handing him over to the US immediately, but not of ill-treatment, especially torture, or exploiting the situation (similar to pressure during hostage-taking). The absence of signs of torture was confirmed by the US coroner.
For comparison…
Now let us examine the behaviour of a state like Ukraine. At the same time, we shall not even mention systematic attacks on civilian targets with high-precision weapons.
On the territory of Ukraine, members of recognised terrorist organisations have found refuge and have officially declared that they use terror as a means of their political war. So, a fair number of so-called ‘Russian opposition nationalists’ are supporters of a neo-Nazi known in Russia and beyond by the nickname of Tesak (which means ‘cleaver’ or ‘machete’ in Russian), whose group not only engaged in the murders of national minorities and terror against LGBT people, but also actively filmed the process on video. None of these people have been extradited and, moreover, they are fighting against Russia in formations associated with the armed forces of Ukraine and organising acts of sabotage within Russia.
Ukrainian special services actively use the method of training one-time performers, similar to the methods of other terrorist movements. The situation when criminals first deceive the victim, then deprive him of his savings and next deceive or blackmail him into committing a terrorist act has become a well-known practice to Russian readers. There are even situations where the recipients of a call from Ukraine were young children who were asked to open all the burners in the house to check the gas meters and then light an open fire in the apartment.
Thus, we see two dimensions of double standards. The first is that the state, which has all the formal grounds to be branded a sponsor of terrorism, is not on the list, while leaving North Korea there requires some justification. Secondly, selective interpretations of a total war of sabotage as terror are also a manifestation of double standards. If we declare that all means are good for fighting the enemy, then this list of means should be perceived as acceptable not only for one side. Nothing destroys the established order as quickly as when one is permitted to act in a given way and another is not.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies, Institute of China and Modern Asia, Russian Academy of Sciences