North Korea's Kim misses communist celebration

Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:59pm EDT
 
[-] Text [+]

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, thought to have suffered a stroke in August, failed to appear on Friday at festivities marking the anniversary of his communist party, South Korea's Unification ministry said.

Last week, the North's official media said the reclusive Kim, 66, attended a soccer match, which was the first mention of an appearance in the state's official media in about 50 days.

Analysts said the North mentioned Kim's attendance to silence speculation he was on his death bed and also so that he would not have to strain himself by showing up for prolonged festivities for the Workers' Party of Korea anniversary.

In September, U.S. and South Korean officials said Kim may have suffered a stroke, raising questions about succession in Asia's only communist dynasty and who was making decisions about its nuclear program.

Kim, the head of the party, usually attends anniversary events that typically include dancing in the streets and masses of North Koreans shouting his praises in unison. This year's ceremonies were more subdued than previous years, South Korea's Unification Ministry officials said.

"Kim Jong-il did not appear at anniversary ceremonies," the ministry said in a statement

The exact health of Kim, known at home as the "Dear Leader," is one of the secretive state's most closely guarded secrets.

South Korean intelligence source said they believed Kim was recovering from his illness and that he had not lost his grip on power.

(Reporting by Jon Herskovitz; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani)

 

Featured Broker sponsored link

Editor's Choice

A selection of our best photos from the past 24 hours.   Slideshow 

Most Popular on Reuters

  • Articles
  • Video
Bernd Debusmann
America’s perennial Vietnam syndrome

History does not repeat itself, but the wartime struggles of President Obama in 2009 and President Johnson in 1963 are striking in their similarities. Does the ghost of Vietnam still hang over the White House?  Commentary