U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong Un shake hands at Panmunjom on the afternoon of June 30, 2019. June 30, 2019 [Photo=Yonhap News]

The report on the work of the 9th Workers' Party Congress, released by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on the 26th, has once again clearly revealed North Korea's strategic direction in its foreign policy.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un left room for improved U.S.-North Korea relations by stating that there is "no reason not to get along" if the U.S. retracts its hostile policies and respects North Korea's status as a nuclear-armed state. At the same time, he delivered a message of rigid disconnection toward South Korea, declaring that it would be "permanently excluded from the category of fellow countrymen."

This effectively reaffirms the classic "tongmi-bongnam" (engaging the U.S. while isolating South Korea) framework, leaving a door open for conditional dialogue with the U.S. while closing the space for negotiations with the South.

Observers suggest that the significance of this message lies more in its form than its content.

The fact that the "hostile two-state" policy was reaffirmed in an official document of the supreme leadership organ—the Party Congress report—rather than a personal statement, indicates an intention to cement the direction of inter-Korean relations as a structural strategy rather than a temporary tactic.

This is interpreted as a signal to exclude South Korea as a negotiating party and to reinforce a direct U.S.-North Korea framework.

There is also a clear disparity in the tone of the messages directed at the U.S. and South Korea.

While North Korea mentioned the possibility of improving relations with the U.S., leaving room for negotiation, it drew a hard line with South Korea, stating there is "nothing to discuss."

This appears to be a strategic choice by North Korea to secure leverage by narrowing its negotiation channels to a single focus. Analysis suggests this is driven by the belief that a greater role for South Korea could weaken their leverage in U.S.-North Korea negotiations.

The potential for conflict with the Lee Jae-myung administration's North Korea policy has also been raised.

While the current government has continued an approach aimed at securing space for resumed dialogue by emphasizing peaceful coexistence and de-escalation, North Korea has explicitly rejected this, labeling it a "deceptive ploy."

Given that North Korea has historically repeated a pattern of raising the initial level of tension against governments eager for dialogue to elevate the baseline for negotiations, this message is seen more as a calculated pressure tactic than an erratic provocation.

The intensity of the military rhetoric has also increased compared to the past.

Kim Jong Un mentioned the possibility of using physical force, including a preemptive strike, and even went as far as to mention the "possibility of the complete collapse of South Korea."

While many analysts suggest this language is intended more for deterrence and psychological warfare than as a precursor to actual military action, the impact of such rhetoric on markets and the diplomatic environment is by no means negligible.

This is because North Korea's threatening messages act as a variable that affects not just military signals, but also investment sentiment, exchange rates, and the broader environment for external negotiations.

Ultimately, experts suggest that this message demonstrates how the center of gravity on the Korean Peninsula is shifting back toward the U.S.-North Korea axis.

The argument is that as Seoul attempts to de-escalate and expand space for dialogue, Pyongyang is responding by pushing South Korea out of the negotiation structure and managing the level of military tension.

It is increasingly believed that the most realistic means North Korea will choose while maintaining its "tongmi-bongnam" strategy is the incremental escalation of military tension toward the South.

North Korea’s chosen path is one of pressure rather than diplomacy, and the conduit for that pressure is military tension directed at South Korea.

Even without the sound of gunfire, the language of threat alone is enough to put the South Korean economy to the test.