A Knot Yet Untied: Is There Hope for North Korea–Japan Relations?
Park Hyong-joon
Konkuk University GLOCAL Campus, KU Global Innovation College
June 22 marked 60 years since South Korea and Japan normalized diplomatic ties. While the two have clashed over history, territory, and security, they’ve also advanced in trade, culture, and people-to-people exchanges. Amid shifting global dynamics, strategic cooperation is gaining importance, with both sides seeking new ways to partner for a shared future.
By contrast, improving ties between North Korea and Japan remains a steep uphill climb. Following the Noto Peninsula earthquake on January 1, 2024, Kim Jong-un extended condolences to Prime Minister Kishida. Around the same time, Kim Yo-jong hinted at the possibility of a summit—if Japan showed political resolve—sparking some optimism. But hopes quickly faded. On March 27, Kim declared an end to all contact, criticizing Japan for lacking the resolve to initiate a new relationship. Since then, progress has stalled.1)
The primary barrier to better ties is the abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea. Both nations are firmly at odds—Pyongyang claims the matter is settled, while Tokyo sees its resolution as essential for normalizing relations. With no common ground, the prospect of improved ties seems dim. To understand this stalemate, one must consider North Korea’s internal logic. Admitting fault in the abduction issue would challenge the leader’s infallibility, a core tenet of the regime. As such, Pyongyang is unlikely to revise its long-held position.
At the core of North Korea’s claim that the abduction issue is “completely resolved” lies the principle of the Suryong(leader)’s infallibility. In the North Korean system, the Suryong symbolizes regime unity, stability, and development, with his absolute authority deeply embedded in all aspects of society.
Every decision by the supreme leader is seen as deliberate, flawless, and final. Revisiting the abduction issue, previously addressed in the 2014 Stockholm Agreement under Kim Jong-un—would imply a mistake in his leadership, contradicting the regime’s portrayal of the Suryong’s perfection. Reopening talks would therefore deal a serious blow to Kim’s authority.
Acknowledging any error would shake the foundation of Kim’s authority, especially as he consolidates power. This fear keeps Pyongyang from engaging further on the abduction matter, reinforcing its claim that the issue is resolved.
If Japan continues to prioritize the abduction issue, North Korea is likely to remain uncooperative. Yet Japan, facing domestic pressure, can’t afford to drop the matter either. In such a stalemate, what’s needed is a courageous shift in approach—one that is both incremental and layered. By first collaborating on less contentious issues, both sides can gradually build the trust needed to tackle more difficult challenges ahead.