Kim Jong-nam spent his last few years highly paranoid, hiding from the regime run by his dictator half-brother while struggling with a sense of powerlessness over the fate of his homeland, according to people who knew him.
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, a close friend and confidant of the man once heir to the North Korean dynasty talked about Kim’s open-minded views and personality that led to his exile — and possibly his death.
In several trips to Geneva, Switzerland, over the past two years, the last one just a few months ago, Kim visited Anthony Sahakian, an old friend from his teenage years at a prestigious international school in the Swiss city.
During Kim’s visit, the former classmates would meet almost daily for a coffee, a cigarillo and a walk.
Known simply as “Lee” to Sahakian, he lived with the knowledge that his younger half-brother, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, might see him as a threat to the autocratic rule he assumed after their father, former North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, died in 2011.
“We actually did discuss the regime, his half-brother, about things going on there. One thing I can say, he was never interested in power,” Sahakian, 44, said. “He wanted out. He never had any ambitions to rule the country. He didn’t accept or appreciate what was going on there. He kept relations with the regime at arm’s length.”
Malaysian officials say two women, believed to be employed by North Korean agents, poisoned Kim Jong-nam a week ago while he waited for a flight from Kuala Lumpur to his home in Macau.
He died in the ambulance.
Sahakian’s recollections of their wide-ranging conversations provide the most candid insight yet into the political views Kim Jong-nam held during his brother’s six-year rule and the fears that his life could be cut short.
“He was afraid. It wasn’t an all-encompassing fear, but he was paranoid. He was a politically important person. He was worried. Of course he was worried,” Sahakian said.
It is not clear why Kim Jong-nam, the first heir, was sidelined. His maternal aunt published a memoir after defecting, saying Kim Jong-il was besotted with his first son, cooing over him as a baby.
However, Kim Jong-nam’s grandfather, the “Great Leader” and founder of modern North Korea, Kim Il-sung, did not approve of the extramarital relationship between Kim Jong-il and the child’s mother, a local film actress.
LEAVING NORTH KOREA
Kim Jong-nam was moved out of the country, to Russia and then Switzerland, where he learned French, Russian, German and English.
This is when Sahakian first met him, aged 12 or 13. He was introduced as the son of an ambassador even though his real father was back home being groomed for the leadership.
“At the time we had no idea what the difference between North and South Korea was,” Sahakian said. “He was a very jolly child, very friendly, very kind, very nice, very generous. Liked life at the time ... spoilt obviously, but we all were somewhat spoilt. Nothing out of the ordinary.”
The only bizarre recollection Sahakian has is of his North Korean friend in a luxurious Mercedes-Benz 600, “driving it himself, which was a bit surprising because we were 15 at the time.”
By the time he returned home, Kim Jong-nam was an adult and a product of his European upbringing. According to his aunt’s memoirs, he was suffocated by the isolation in North Korea.
He fell further out of favor when he was caught sneaking into Japan on a fake Dominican Republic passport in 2001. After that, he lived in exile — in Macau, where he and his wife had children, and also Singapore. He kept a house in Beijing, according to another friend.
Occasionally spotted in jeans and a T-shirt at airports or restaurants from Paris to Indonesia, Kim always smiled politely to reporters.
Although he once made it clear to journalists that he had not “defected,” it was apparent that he was in exile — whether self-imposed or forced.
Possibly seeing a chance for reform as his father’s health waned, Kim Jong-nam spoke in early 2011 of his political views to Yoji Gomi, a Japanese journalist, months before Kim Jong-un was appointed “supreme leader.”
However, when Gomi published the book in 2012, which included criticism of the hereditary transfer of power, Kim Jong-nam stayed silent — possibly fearful that his brother, now in power, would seek him out in a rage.
A year later, their uncle — the North’s former No. 2 who was close to Kim Jong-nam — was executed for his “dirty political ambition,” kick-starting a series of purges from the newly installed Kim Jong-un.
Following that, Kim Jong-nam kept a very low profile, juggling his naturally outgoing character with a life-preserving need to avoid the spotlight.
“He was very sad about the situation in his country and he really felt for his people. It added to the pressures on him because he couldn’t do anything about it,” Sahakian said.
THE GENERALS’ RULE
Kim Jong-nam had deeply considered his role, or lack of one, in his home country, Sahakian said.
He would tell his friend about a “gerontocracy” — rule by old people — of army generals who were “born under Stalin” and kept the nation submerged in isolationist and repressive rule.
He said his brother had become part of the monolithic system run by the much older generals around him.
“I don’t think he meant his brother was controlled by them, but definitely when everybody has a similar mindset, you live up to the mindset,” Sahakian said.
Kim Jong-nam, a thoughtful man who desired reform, felt powerless.
Although he still had a claim to high office as the eldest son, he knew he did not have the “character or the will” to enter the ruthless world of North Korean politics, Sahakian said.
“You have to have ice in your veins to do that,” he said. “There would have to have been a lot of blood to change the system and I don’t think he was up for that.”
Quite simply, Kim was not a monster, Sahakian said.
However, nor was he the jet-setting, casino-addicted, womanizing playboy that the media often depicts.
Part of the reason Sahakian agreed to speak out was to portray his friend as a “decent human being,” he said.
“He might have gambled, he might have been caught drunk. He liked women, but what’s wrong with that?” Sahakian said.
King Jong-nam had told him he would not accept money from North Korea and lived off various business ventures in Europe.
When he visited Geneva, he used Airbnb.
However, living a normal life was hard.
“You have to imagine the immense psychological pressure for somebody like that,” Sahakian said. “What’s your skillset as a dictator’s son? What do you do? Go work for Goldman Sachs? It wasn’t easy for him.”
His undesired status as a member of the ruling family of the world’s most isolated state meant King Jong-nam also had to call governments in advance of his arrival.
“What he mentioned to me is that he had to talk to people in order to travel,” Sahakian said. “They wouldn’t let him travel freely without some sort of debrief, I would imagine.”
Perhaps it was this, his international lifestyle and mingling with the wider world, that Pyongyang found so threatening.
Since Kim Jong-nam’s death, Sahakian has considered the different scenarios that led to his friend’s murder.
He pauses on one theory in which a sycophantic general might have taken the initiative to kill him — a lurid surprise gift to the supreme leader.
“In the paranoia there, in order to please the king, maybe somebody went too far. For this, you have to ask his brother,” Sahakian said.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under