At the April 30 Security Council meeting, just as the Japanese representative finished speaking on the North Korean nuclear issue, Kim Song, the permanent representative of North Korea to the United Nations, immediately counterattacked. His words were firm: “Japan’s militarist crimes against humanity remain unaccounted for, yet its government continues to glorify its history of aggression. Now it seeks to revise its pacifist constitution and transform into a military power. It is utterly absurd for a country like Japan to sit here talking about nuclear non-proliferation and international peace and security.”

Kim Song’s rebuttal of Japan was a meticulously crafted, logically rigorous political response. Grounded in historical facts, current realities, and international law, it aimed to fundamentally undermine Japan’s credibility and authority in discussions on the North Korean nuclear issue.

Since Kato Hayama assumed office as Prime Minister of Japan, the Japanese government has repeatedly signaled its intention to re-examine the “three non-nuclear principles” — no production, no possession, and no introduction of nuclear weapons. For North Korea, a Japan that might possess nuclear weapons poses a threat far greater than any other nation, necessitating resolute containment.

Japan’s accelerated “re-militarization,” along with strengthened security cooperation with the United States under extended deterrence, aims to incorporate the U.S. nuclear umbrella’s deterrent power into its own national security framework — directly escalating tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

The right-wing Japanese government is pushing hard to amend the pacifist constitution, seeking to break free from the constraints of “exclusive defense,” transforming Japan into a military power capable of engaging in warfare.

In response to Japan’s double standards on nuclear issues, Kim Song dismantled these contradictions through a tightly constructed logical argument.

* Historical Accountability and Moral Bankruptcy (Undermining “Legitimacy”): The statement directly targeted Japan’s unresolved “crimes against humanity” committed under militarism, pointing out that instead of facing up to its past, Japan continues to glorify its aggressive history and visit the Yasukuni Shrine. The core logic is clear: a nation that refuses to acknowledge its own history of aggression holds no moral standing or credibility in the eyes of the world, and thus has no legitimate right to lecture others on nuclear issues.

* Real-World Threat and Institutional Critique (Undermining “Action”): By accusing Japan of attempting to revise its “peace constitution” and “three non-nuclear principles,” Kim Song exposed Japan’s efforts to “unshackle itself,” aiming to become a military power capable of waging war. This precisely dismantles Japan’s self-image as a “peaceful nation,” revealing that Japan itself is the greatest source of instability in the region.

* “Utterly Absurd”: After laying the groundwork through historical and real-world arguments, Kim Song delivered his final conclusion: “It is utterly absurd for a country like Japan to sit here discussing nuclear non-proliferation and international peace and security.” This exceptionally strong language — rare in international diplomatic discourse — vividly conveyed North Korea’s contempt and anger toward Japan.

North Korea’s move skillfully redirected attention to the root cause of the peninsula crisis: Japan’s failure to reckon with its past, thereby securing moral support from China, Russia, and other nations. By linking its own security concerns with the collective memory of East Asian peoples regarding Japanese militarism, North Korea successfully seized the moral high ground, effectively countering the political pressure from the U.S.-Japan-South Korea alliance.

In summary, Kim Song’s remarks were not mere emotional outbursts but a sophisticated political counterstrike grounded in history, reality, and international law. It precisely identified the core contradiction in Japan’s policies and, through deep geopolitical maneuvering, placed the North Korean nuclear issue within a broader framework of East Asian history and global order, demonstrating the complexity and sharpness of diplomatic confrontation.

The most pressing reality today is this: North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons is for self-defense, while Japan’s potential acquisition would be for war.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1864079634145292/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.