Georgy Toloraya surveys a landscape of question marks when it comes to the assassination of Kim Jong Nam in Malaysia, from 38 North:
This attack also raises a strong doubt that a new, likely liberal South Korean government will start a dialogue with Pyongyang, as was widely expected. Relations with China also suffered, as Beijing immediately punished Kim Jong Un by banning coal exports for the rest of the year. Russia’s hopes for restarting multilateral negotiations were also dashed, quickly dissolving any warm feelings in Moscow. And, of course, North Korea’s relations with Malaysia—one of the few partners and outposts abroad—have been severely damaged over criticisms over the investigation process.
These are just a handful of the questions still to be answered about this ordeal. Numerous theories have emerged thus far about who perpetrated this act, why now and to what ends—everything from Kim Jong Un ordering the hit to something more complex such as some “reactionary” or China-biased forces in the North staging the event to curb Kim Jong Un’s influence. (For example, a group of intelligence people may have felt threatened by the Marshal and instructed their unsuspecting agents to stage the event to undermine Kim Jong Un’s standing both domestically and abroad.) We may never know the full story, but we should be watching closely to both the Malaysian investigations and North Korean responses over the next few weeks for more answers to why Kim Jong Nam was killed.
I hadn’t considered a false flag attack. Certainly, ridding the world of a Kim family member while also eliminating an export market for North Korea might count as a two-fer for certain groups.
