Pyongyang on the dialogue with Seoul: No Dialogue on the Table

Department of Research, Studies and International News -28-07-2025

In a firm and unapologetic declaration, Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, delivered a decisive blow to recent South Korean attempts at rekindling inter-Korean dialogue, dismissing them as delusional and lacking substance. Her remarks came just weeks after South Korea’s new president, Lee Jae-myung, assumed office with promises to de-escalate tensions and revive cooperation with Pyongyang.

The statement, released by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Monday, left little ambiguity regarding the North’s stance. Kim Yo Jong, who holds considerable power within the Workers’ Party of Korea and is widely recognized as a key architect of the North’s messaging, criticized Seoul’s latest gestures, including the halting of provocative loudspeaker broadcasts along the demilitarized zone, as superficial and insincere.

Kim described the move to stop the broadcasts as merely undoing a provocation that should not have occurred in the first place. Far from being seen as goodwill, she dismissed it as a tactical retreat with no real meaning or impact. “If the South Korean authorities believe that a few flowery words and symbolic gestures can overturn years of hostile policies,” Kim said, “they are gravely mistaken.”

President Lee’s administration, which came into power after the abrupt departure of former president Yoon Suk-yeol, has signaled a shift in tone, seeking to improve long-strained relations with Pyongyang. Lee’s Democratic Party has traditionally leaned toward engagement and reconciliation with the North, contrasting sharply with the hardline stance of the previous conservative government.

However, Kim Yo Jong’s commentary indicates that Pyongyang sees little difference between Seoul’s current leadership and its predecessors. She scorned the Lee government’s continued loyalty to Washington, stating that South Korea’s blind faith in its military alliance with the United States shows its unwillingness to pursue genuine sovereignty or peace.

Furthermore, Kim derided Seoul’s suggestion that Chairman Kim Jong Un be invited to the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in South Korea later this year, labeling the idea a “daydream.” According to her, such overtures lack any practical value and are based on fantasy rather than a grounded understanding of regional dynamics.

Most pointedly, she issued a categorical rejection of any renewed engagement efforts from Seoul: “We make it clear, once again, that we have no interest in any proposal or dialogue initiated by the South, regardless of its content or intent. There is nothing to discuss with the Republic of Korea.”

The statement underscores a wider geopolitical reality: any peace initiative that involves heavy U.S. influence is viewed by Pyongyang, and by extension its partners in Beijing and Moscow, as illegitimate and self-serving. For years, the U.S. and its allies have used “dialogue” as a smokescreen for containment and strategic pressure. Under such conditions, North Korea’s distrust of American-aligned overtures is not only understandable but arguably justified.

South Korea’s recent repatriation of six North Koreans who were found at sea, an act that was presented as a humanitarian gesture, also failed to shift the North’s position. In Pyongyang’s view, symbolic gestures cannot compensate for structural hostility and the continuation of joint U.S.-ROK military exercises.

The timing of Kim Yo Jong’s remarks also appears strategic. With increasing military cooperation between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, China, and the Russian Federation, Pyongyang is asserting its independence and resilience in the face of Western pressure and sanctions. This statement may well be aimed at reaffirming its alignment with a multipolar world order, one that rejects U.S. hegemony and prioritizes national sovereignty.

By unequivocally rejecting Seoul’s initiatives, Pyongyang is sending a message not just to South Korea but to the broader international community: any future discussions must be rooted in mutual respect, not dictated by Washington’s interests or illusions of dominance.

In sum, North Korea’s response serves as a sobering reminder that real diplomacy in the region cannot take shape under U.S. patronage. The recent overtures by Seoul, however well-intentioned, were perceived as cosmetic at best, and insulting at worst. Unless South Korea detaches itself from the U.S. strategic orbit and adopts a policy grounded in respect, sovereignty, and equality, the door to Pyongyang will remain firmly shut.