JANG SUNG TAEK, the uncle and right-hand man
to Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s young dictator, was no stranger to official
resentment. By some accounts, he fell out of favour with all three of the
country’s Kims in sequence. He was purged around 1978, when he was banished to
a steel mill and forced to do “reformation work” for two years. He disappeared
in 2003 too, presumed purged and probably sent for a refresher course on regime
loyalty. Again, he came back. But the nature of the publicity surrounding his latest ouster, which was confirmed on
December 8th by the North’s state-run news agency, KCNA, leaves little doubt
that this will be his last.
On December 12th KCNA announced that Mr Jang had been executed.
This confounds the long-held
assumption that “a Kim doesn’t kill a Kim”, according to Andrei Lankov, an
expert on North Korea who is based in Seoul. The story of Mr Jang’s ejection
from a Politburo meeting filled the front page of the Rodong Sinmun,
the state newspaper, on December 9th, treating readers to a lengthy list of his
perfidies and philandering. This, too, runs counter to a decades-long tradition
of quiet dismissals and fuzzy Party shuffles. Every public gesture had been
choreographed to demonstrate unity in North Korea: to unveil the depth of
factionalism in the leadership is extraordinary, says John Delury of Yonsei
University in Seoul.
To reveal just how rotten someone so
close to the Supreme Leader could become might look unwise. But it also showed
that Mr Jang’s execution was a foregone conclusion. “The message to the people
is that corruption is punishable by death, and that no one is spared—not even
family”, says Jong Chang-hyun, a professor of North Korean studies at Kookmin
University in Seoul. The allegations will also have disgraced Mr Jang’s wife, Kim
Kyong Hui, who is also a sister to Kim Jong Il, the country’s previous ruler
and father to the current dictator.
The scale of the publicity is a
surprise for other reasons, according to Jang Jin-sung, a former propaganda
official who defected to South Korea in 2004. He thinks it suspicious that the
purge took place in a Politburo meeting. Kim Jong Il rarely convened such
pow-wows; after all, quietly orchestrated dismissals were made at his sole
discretion. That Mr Jang’s ouster took place in such a public setting suggests
that it was out of Mr Kim’s hands, he says—as do the charges of womanising,
which damage Ms Kim and, by extension, the young Mr Kim himself. Another oddity
is that the news was broadcast first to the outside world on KCNA, and only
then on internal media. Previous purges were usually publicised (if at all)
weeks or months after the event.
Some think, then, that the removal is
a message to the outside world too, and China in particular. Mr Jang was seen
as a key proponent of Chinese-style economic reform in North Korea and visited
China a number of times (though he had been replaced as the official envoy in
May). But the relationship between the two countries is in poor shape anyway,
says Mr Delury. Mr Jang’s visit there last August was seen as a failure. He was
closely involved in opening special economic zones along the North’s border
with China, but their development has been sluggish. And almost nothing in the
indictment suggested that his ouster was about policy experiments to open the North’s
economy. Instead, it suggests he resisted the regime’s sacred “pivot to the
Cabinet principle”. Mr Kim has already made clear that the Cabinet, the state’s
top executive body, is supposed to lead the state’s economic policies. The
implication is that Mr Jang was undercutting its reformist efforts.
The trial statement is rich with
references to Mr Jang’s taking advantage of a position which allowed him to
control the regime’s resources and money. He sold off “precious resources of
the country at cheap prices” and “squandered foreign currency at casinos”. That
he was able to do this shows the power he and his group had accumulated, says
Jang Jin-sung. Another report from last week—that his fund manager had defected
to South Korea—appears to confirm this.
Mr Jong does not take Mr Jang’s
execution as harbinger of a tough new anti-China stance. Rather he expects it
to “speed up internal reform”, including the expansion of special economic
zones and the reorganisation of control over state finances. The day after Mr
Jang’s arrest the Joongang Daily, a South Korean newspaper, reported
that North Korea had signed a contract with China’s Tumen prefecture to form an
exclusive industrial zone in Hamkyung province. It is to be designed as a
“second Kaesong
Industrial Complex”, run on Chinese financing and North Korean labour. ‘The
Economist’
No comments:
Post a Comment