• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: The Death of Kim Jong-il

    North Korea’s official media announced that Kim Jong-il, the country’s long-time leader, died on Saturday of “physical and mental overwork.” Although Kim had several health problems, particularly after a stroke in August 2008, he had appeared vibrant in recent meetings. As such, the surprise development raises concerns about its impact on Pyongyang’s ongoing leadership transition, regime stability, and North Korean security and foreign policies.

    North Korean provocative behavior or military action is unlikely in the near-term. However, Seoul and Washington will be wary that Kim Jong-un, third son of Kim Jong-il and the next leader of North Korea, may feel it necessary in the future to precipitate a crisis to prove his mettle to other senior leaders or deflect attention from the regime’s failings. South Korea announced on Sunday that it had increased the alert of its military and would convene an emergency meeting of its national security council.

    Kim’s death eclipses rumors earlier Sunday that North Korea and the United States had made sufficient diplomatic progress to potentially enable a resumption of nuclear negotiations through the six-party talks. It is likely that such negotiations would be postponed as North Korea goes through a mourning period, formalized succession process, and possible retrenchment of its foreign policies.

    Succession on Track, but Uncertainties Remain. Following Kim Jong-il’s 2008 stroke, Pyongyang implemented a leadership succession plan to anoint Jong-un as the next leader. He was made a four-star general, despite having never served in the military, and given senior party and military leadership positions. The succession seems to be well underway, but during the past year, several senior officials were removed from office, reportedly as a purge of those resistant to a second North Korean dynastic succession.

    Kim’s early death removes a key stability factor for the succession process. Had Kim remained alive longer, it would have given Jong-un greater opportunity to develop his own independent power base of leadership elites loyal to him personally. The North Korean elite has a vested interest in maintaining the system and will assess Jong-un’s ability to protect its interests. The elite will balance a shared sense of external threat against fear of domestic instability from an inexperienced leader. The senior government leadership may assess Jong-un’s shortcomings as sufficient justification for contesting his succession. Elite resistance to Jong-un’s rule could manifest itself in outright opposition or in usurping his power and leaving him a mere figurehead.

    North Korea’s Untested New Leader. Kim Jong-un, 28, is a pale reflection of his father and grandfather. He has little experience or accomplishments and only recently announced to senior official positions, and he has not had the decades of grooming and securing of a power base that Jong-il enjoyed before assuming control from his own father, Kim Il-sung. Il-sung had delegated authority for North Korea’s security services and nuclear weapons programs to Jong-il years before he died. During the last years of his father’s life, Jong-il was, for all intents and purposes, the one running the country.

    Some experts assess that, since Kim Jong-un spent several years in Switzerland, he may be more amenable to implementing economic and political reform as well as pursuing a less provocative foreign policy. However, Jong-un is likely to continue the same policies as his father and grandfather.

    But because he lacks his father’s cult of personality, he will be more reliant on support from senior party and military leaders who are overwhelmingly nationalist and resistant to change. Jong-un will have to base his legitimacy on maintaining the legacy of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il by continuing their nationalist and military-based policies. The new leader will have to reassure the senior leadership that his policies do not pose a risk to regime stability and, by extension, their livelihoods and lives.

    Indeed, Jong-un may pursue a policy that is even more hard-line than his father’s. In addition to potentially instigating a crisis in order to generate a “rally around the flag” effect, propaganda would highlight the supposed need for increased vigilance against attempts by outside powers to take advantage of North Korea’s weakness during a leadership transition.

    If Jong-un were to pursue such a policy, there would be North Korean announcements to heighten the country’s defenses against the U.S. and South Korea and increase rather than abandon Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Such a tumultuous time, the government would argue, would negate any potential for implementing any economic or political reform that could risk regime instability.

    Diplomatic Breakthrough on Hold? Prior to Kim’s death, media reports suggested that the United States and North Korea had made preliminary agreements that opened the door to resumption of multilateral nuclear negotiations. Pyongyang had reportedly acquiesced to U.S. and South Korean preconditions by agreeing to freeze its uranium enrichment program, allow a return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to the Yongbyon nuclear reactor, and place a moratorium on further nuclear and long-range missile tests. In return, it was rumored, the United States would pledge to provide 240,000 tons of food aid in monthly tranches of 20,000 tons.

    If the rumors are true, it reflects a tactical diplomatic breakthrough, though one that simply returns the weary boxers back to the ring for what portends to be difficult and contentious negotiations. Given Pyongyang’s cheating on previous accords, Washington and its allies would need to insist on more carefully crafted agreements than previously vaguely written joint statements. Difficulties in monitoring easily hidden uranium facilities would necessitate far more vigorous and intrusive verification measures than were being contemplated when the six-party talks collapsed in 2008.

    However, the death of Kim Jong-il would presumably delay a resumption of such negotiations as the new North Korean leadership assesses to what degree it is willing to open up to the outside world. Although the demise of Kim Jong-il provides an opportunity for change on the Korean Peninsula, it is a transition fraught with uncertainty, nervousness, and potential danger.

    Bruce Klingner is the Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia at The Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center. Klingner joined Heritage in 2007 after 20 years in the intelligence community working at the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency.

    Quick Hits:

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    23 Responses to Morning Bell: The Death of Kim Jong-il

    1. MJFin CT says:

      Goodby to another Communist who killed his people with no regard. Now we have to deal with his son whom I have no doubt will be the spitting image of his murderous father.

    2. PaulC37 says:

      What a golden opportunity Kim Jong-un, has to do right by his people and serve them and not the other way around.

    3. Robert, TX says:

      So, are you telling us that it is going to cost us more money? Do tariffs on imports from South Korea cover the cost of our troops, our bases and our vigilance? Remember when non-punitive tariffs and duties covered over 85% of our (then) balanced budget? It would be nice if we could elect a President that would bust some heads for the first time in 70 years (and get peoples' attention), but since that is not an option, at least Ron Paul will cut the ridiculous spending (for real, for once).

    4. gongdark says:

      One threat down and one to go

      • madog2 says:

        It is still amazing to me that our past and present leaders have not give a second thought to sending our military to protect so called allie's borders all over the world and not even try to protect our own. We have been under attack from terrorest, free loaders, job robbing leaches, and other trash for many years and our so called leaders calmly sit on their well pampered butts and continue openly lie about how much they care about the American people

    5. Jeff Dover says:

      Hopefully the Korean people will buck the new kid and rebel, taking control for themselves and shucking the legacy of famine and dysfunction, not to mention the brutality. I doubt of the present White House has CIA active doing anything there. It's not their style to support freedom and capitalism. Obama's more comfortable with dictators.

    6. HappyinTexas says:

      Bruce, this is such a great article! Written in layman terms so even a granny from the 60s can understand it and find it interesting. I've even memorized the names of the three N Korean leaders. Everything I've ever read by Heritage Foundation is well-written and superb. You are an eloquent bunch!

    7. Will says:


    8. F.D. O'Toole says:

      The complexity of this situation calls for an "A" team. Where is John Bolton when we need him?

    9. Michael Wensink says:

      Walk softly and carry a big stick is good advise. Carry a big stick and walk softly is what reactionary fools do. Listen before you react to this event is the point.

    10. Jim Griggs says:

      There's a special place in hell for dictators. I'm sure that this one has his.
      Unfortunately, what follows could be so much worse. The North Korean people deserve our prayers.

    11. ThomNJ says:

      "He has little experience or accomplishments and only recently announced to senior official positions,…"

      Hah – sounds like someone else we all know now sitting in the Oval Office.

      • Spyderman says:

        …who has never had military experience….or business experience, for that matter…but that's another story.

    12. Bobbie says:

      How about looking to South Korea and their respect for democracy? Can Mr. Jong-un "change" the tradition of dictatorship? He could choose freedom and peace that takes his lead, not necessarily his presence and absolutely no need for nukes!? People can be cool, give peace and freedom around the world a chance and give dictatorships and all lead-isms around the world a rest! …a permanent rest!

    13. Jeanne Stotler says:

      We need to be very aware of the goings on in ths country, we know very little about this son, we do know he's been well indoctrinated.

    14. Jack says:

      Giving the North Koreans 240,000 tons of food doesn't amount to squat! remember in the past we've given then tons of oil and rice and what major changes have they made to their people and international rapport ? We are really doing the opposite and helping them create havoc around the world.supporting Iran and God knows how many other terrorists organization! Don't fool yourselves,most the aid goes to his zombie followers! It's a waste!!

    15. JBinGB says:

      Sending these people food or any aid just keeps these terrible communists in power

    16. Michael Wensink says:

      Somebody give McCain a sedative, when he calms down tell him no matter how much he complains nobody's going to put him back in seat of a fighter plane.

    17. Denise Utah says:

      I believe that by supporting the North Korean people with food and oil, we are not really helping them at all. There are more American flags on the streets of North Korean cities than on the streets of American cities. Each bag of grain donated by the taxpayers of this great country has an American flag on it. Those people use the empty bags for carrying and hauling things. By feeding these people, the North Korean government is off the hook for the way it spends its people's money, such as on nuclear weapons and highways no one has cars to drive on. I know that many people starve to death in North Korea, but if those people in mass were really hungry they may overthrow that evil dictatorship once and for all. The United States should butt out and let the people do what they have to do to get rid of such tyranny. So, the way I see it is the Americans feed the North Koreans so the government can build up armaments to threaten the world with. It makes NO sense to me at all!

    18. Donald South says:

      I am 76 years of age & remember the Korean War very well. I just want to say for you younger folks, that General Douglas Mac Arthur is looking better all the time & Harry S Truman is looking more incompetent all the time, as most of us knew back in 1951.

    19. Dave26027 says:

      Once in awhile, God himself steps in to take out the trash.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.