“Only Idiots Expect Us to Give Up Nukes”: — Kim Yo Jong

North Korea has delivered another blunt message to the international community: it does not intend to surrender its nuclear weapons.

Kim Yo Jong, the powerful sister of leader Kim Jong Un, said Thursday that North Korea’s nuclear status was “absolute” and described those who still expect denuclearisation as “idiots”.

Her comments came as the International Atomic Energy Agency continued discussions in Vienna about North Korea’s nuclear programme.

The language is provocative. But the policy behind it is even more important.

North Korea’s nuclear confrontation with the outside world did not begin with Kim Jong Un.
In the early 1990s, international inspectors were already confronting Pyongyang over access to its nuclear facilities.

That crisis produced the 1994 Agreed Framework between Washington and Pyongyang.

North Korea agreed to freeze parts of its nuclear programme in return for energy assistance and steps towards political normalisation.

The arrangement eventually collapsed. North Korea subsequently developed its weapons programme further and conducted its first nuclear test in 2006.

Six-Party negotiations later produced temporary diplomatic openings, but the fundamental dispute over verification, sanctions, security guarantees and denuclearisation remained.

Then came the extraordinary diplomacy of 2018 and 2019. Kim Jong Un met Donald Trump, but the Hanoi summit ended without a nuclear deal.

That failure is important to understanding today’s North Korean position.

Why Pyongyang sees the bomb differently. North Korea’s leadership presents nuclear weapons primarily as a deterrent against external threats.

From Pyongyang’s perspective, the United States maintains a military alliance with South Korea, while Washington, Seoul and Tokyo continue to strengthen security cooperation.

North Korea therefore argues that abandoning its nuclear weapons would expose it to unacceptable danger.

That is a strategic argument, not evidence that every North Korean claim about foreign intentions is correct.

The opposite side sees the nuclear programme as a major source of regional instability and a direct challenge to the international non-proliferation system.

That disagreement has remained unresolved for decades.

The meaning of “permanent”
The latest statement goes further than simply saying North Korea currently possesses nuclear weapons. North Korea legally declared itself a nuclear weapons state in 2022. Its leadership has since described that status as irreversible and linked the expansion of its nuclear capability to national defence.

ADVERTISEMENT

Kim Yo Jong’s latest message therefore serves two purposes. First, it tells the IAEA and Western governments that traditional denuclearisation language will not persuade Pyongyang.

Second, it establishes a negotiating position before any future diplomacy begins. If North Korea says its nuclear status is permanent, any future talks are likely to focus less on complete disarmament and more on issues such as arms control, risk reduction, testing, production limits, sanctions and security guarantees.

That would represent a major change from the language of earlier negotiations.

The dangerous cycle

There is also a security dilemma at work. North Korea expands its weapons programme because it says it feels threatened. South Korea and the United States strengthen their military preparedness because they say North Korea’s weapons programme threatens them.

Each side then points to the other as justification for its next move. That cycle has helped keep the Korean Peninsula tense for decades.

The word “paranoia” is often used casually when discussing Pyongyang, but the more useful explanation is a deeply entrenched security worldview shaped by war, isolation, regime survival fears and decades of confrontation.

Kim Yo Jong’s latest statement therefore says more than “we like nuclear weapons.” It says North Korea now regards the weapons as part of the foundation of the state itself.

That makes denuclearisation far more difficult, and any future diplomacy will have to confront that reality rather than simply repeat old demands, ValidViewNetwork reports.