The 2025 United Nations General Assembly seems to be as usual, but it caused quite a stir because of an unexpected speech.

North Korea, this country that has been almost marginalized by the international political scene for years, suddenly opened up at the conference, with the weight of the tone and the speech, so that many attendees shook their eyes.

North Korea's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Kim Feng Shui again stood on the United Nations General Assembly speech after seven years, once he opened his speech, targeted Israel, criticized its military operation in Gaza "without a bottom line", and also said that even China and Russia did not say export "heavy talk".

This is not only a diplomatic return, but also a carefully planned "public opinion raid." North Korea's remarks not only caught Israel unprepared, but also embarrassed many countries.

Behind this sudden "heavy hammer" is hidden not only the statement of the conflict against Pakistan and Israel, but also North Korea's attempt to express its position and regain the sense of international presence.

Behind North Korea¡¯s voice is more than anger against Pakistan.

At the United Nations General Assembly in late September, representatives of countries spoke in turn, mostly around global development, climate change and regional security.It was not until Jin Xianjing stood on the podium that the atmosphere on the field changed significantly.

He has no circle. Directly criticizing Israel¡¯s military operations in the Gaza Strip ¡°beyond the human bottom line¡± and without any ¡°diplomatic buffer¡± in the speech, he pointed directly to ¡°Israel¡¯s actions have seriously violated international humanitarian norms.¡±

What is more noteworthy is that Jin Xianjing also called on the United Nations on the spot to formally recognize Palestine as a member state and demanded Israel's full withdrawal from Gaza. These words were blunt and merciless, which caught many countries off guard.

Especially when he said that "certain countries have been condoning Israel's military actions." Although he did not name them, everyone understood who he was referring to.

This statement naturally sparked heated discussions against the backdrop of the current increasing attention of global public opinion to the situation in Gaza. Since the beginning of this year, the conflict in the Gaza Strip has continued to escalate, with thousands of civilians living in flames.

While many countries have called for a ceasefire, North Korea is the first to really dare to criticize Israel in the United Nations.

But if this statement was taken as a mere moral move, it would be too underestimating North Korea¡¯s diplomatic thinking.

It is more like speaking for North Korea itself.

After all, North Korea did not stand on the United Nations podium this time because it "suddenly felt a sense of international responsibility."From a time point of view, this speech did not appear suddenly.In recent months, North Korea has appeared frequently in international news.

In July, North Korea tested a new type of medium-range missile, causing Japan and South Korea to react vigorously; in August, the United States and South Korea held joint military exercises in Northeast Asia, and the DPRK immediately replied that it would "strengthen the nuclear response mechanism".

There are signs that North Korea is deliberately "returning to international perspective." And this speech at the United Nations is an extension of this series of actions.

North Korea knows that its voice is often ignored by the mainstream international media, so it can only ¡°push back¡± itself in a more direct and fierce way.

In this context, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has become an "exit": it can not only express dissatisfaction with the unfair behavior of Western countries, but also emphasize North Korea's own "passive defense" stance.

This was also mentioned by Kim in his speech. He said there is "paranoia and selective law enforcement" in the current international order, with some countries ignoring allied military actions but blaming other countries for defensive actions.Although this passage sounds somewhat widespread, in combination with the encounters of North Korea in recent years, the context is much clearer.

North Korea means very clearly: you say I am at war, then look at the Middle East.If you say that I violate international norms, then see how you treat Israel.While this contrast is not necessarily fully established, it is sufficient to give rise to debate in today¡¯s serious international situation.

Why did China and Russia choose restraint, and why did North Korea ¡°do not shut up¡±?

Another reason why this speech attracted attention is comparison. Against the backdrop of the continued deterioration of the situation in Gaza, although both China and Russia have expressed their support for the ceasefire, their words are generally cautious.

China emphasizes promoting peace talks, while Russia calls on all sides to remain restrained, even when it comes to criticism of Israel, it is a point to avoid using too harsh language.

North Korea¡¯s criticism not only criticizes Israel for ¡°breaking international rules¡±, but also compares the escalation of the conflict to ¡°war crimes¡± and accuses the UN Security Council of ¡°losing justice under the leadership of great powers¡±.

Behind this difference is actually the different positions of countries in the international system. After all, China and Russia still have a place in the UN Security Council, and have their own international game space and interest considerations.

And North Korea has long been excluded from the main mechanism, rather than being a ¡°participant¡± than a ¡°critic¡±.

This has also given North Korea some sympathy and resonance among some "countries in the global south." After all, in the eyes of many developing countries, the international order does have a problem of "selective justice".

And North Korea¡¯s speech, despite its tough stance, is also forced to think about a question: is it only countries that are ¡°marginalized¡± that dare to say words that are ¡°diplomatically inconvenient to export¡±?

Who is responding, who is silent, who is watching?

As soon as North Korea's speech landed, it triggered discussion on international media and social platforms. Israel did not respond positively, but domestic media criticized North Korea for "interfering in internal affairs".

At the press conference, a spokesman for the U.S. State Department expressed "regret for North Korea's remarks" and reiterated the U.S. security commitment to Israel.

At the scene of the UN General Assembly, although some representatives from Arab countries did not explicitly support North Korea's speech, they did not show obvious rejection.

Some delegations chose to withdraw in the speech of the Israeli representative, although they did not directly respond to North Korea's speech, but also indirectly expressed dissatisfaction with the current situation.

As for China and Russia, the diplomatic representatives of the two countries did not comment on the DPRK's speech after the meeting, and continued to maintain a "neutral position". This also shows once again that North Korea's "high-profile diplomacy" is still a "lonely voice", but it does not mean that no one listens.

At present, this speech will not directly change North Korea's diplomatic situation, nor is it likely to affect the direction of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But it did play a role: it made North Korea reappear in the international field of vision, and it publicly spoke out on a highly sensitive issue.

After saying "harsh words", what does North Korea want?

Judging from its performance at the United Nations this time, North Korea doesn't expect to change anything with a few heavy words. It's more like a way to remind the world that I'm still here, I can see clearly and I can tell.

Under the current international situation, this kind of "high decibel diplomacy" may not bring substantial benefits, but at least it can make North Korea no longer "invisible" at the information level.

Along with North Korea¡¯s recent frequent contacts with Russia and its attempts to break the blockade on foreign trade, it is gradually building a sense of its own ¡°diplomatic presence¡±.

From a more macro perspective, North Korea¡¯s remarks reflect a trend: more and more countries are no longer satisfied with ¡°diplomatic correctness¡±, but are seeking more attention through fierce expressions.

Although the risk of this approach is not small, at the moment when the competition for international discourse power is becoming increasingly fierce, it may be the option that some countries think is "worthwhile".

It is hard to say how much North Korea's "hardest speech" in the United Nations can play.

But what is certain is that it makes people realize that in this complex, multi-position world, some countries are marginalized, but a word of ¡°talk¡± can make the world stop and listen for a few seconds.

And in those seconds, someone is angry, someone is silent, and someone begins to rethink: what kind of sound is worth listening.

Source of information:

Official announcement of the United Nations: The 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly will be held in New York in September 2025. North Korea's representative Kim Sun-kyung attended and spoke. It was the first time in seven years that he attended the general debate of the United Nations General Assembly. The full text of his speech is contained in the official record.

China's Foreign Ministry spokesman stressed the promotion of a ceasefire, the protection of civilians, and the support of the "two-country scheme" and did not use such expressions as "genocide" and "crimes against humanity".