Arafat Chose to Fight for 6 Months... Moscow’s Position Was his Greatest Disappointment 

Asharq Al-Awsat publishes recollections of influential players during 1982 Israeli invasion of Beirut. 

Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
TT

Arafat Chose to Fight for 6 Months... Moscow’s Position Was his Greatest Disappointment 

Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)

On this day in 1982, Beirut was besieged by the Israeli army and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat boarded a ship that took him to his new exile in Tunisia. The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s loss of its last front with Israel would leave its mark on the Palestinians and Lebanon.

As Israel tightened its siege of Beirut, Arafat took a secret decision to carry on fighting for six months until regional and international stances emerged. He was forced to leave Lebanon after 88 days, marking an end of what he described as the “longest Arab-Israeli war.”

The greatest disappointment to the Palestinian resistance and its allies in the Lebanese National Movement came from their Soviet ally. Moscow had refused to deliver a serious warning or send a destroyer off the Lebanese coast or a ship to evacuate the wounded.

Arafat’s insistence that he leave Lebanon by sea, not through Damascus, reflected the extent of the differences between him and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Ahmed Jibril recalled that Arafat had bluntly told him that the Syrian leadership will not be credited for him holding out for three months in Beirut.

Asharq Al-Awsat will publish a series of features highlighting the significant developments and recollections of influential players during that heated summer of 1982.

From a building in east Beirut, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon observed Arafat as he boarded the ship that would take him to Tunisia. He wrongly believed that had broken the Palestinian resistance and that it would fade away in exile. The invasion failed in luring Lebanon to strike a peace deal with Israel. The current Lebanon has an even more hardline position towards Israel.

Against the backdrop of the war, Syria and Iran will lay the foundation of their alliance. Hezbollah would be born in Lebanon. Syria, which had withdrawn its troops from Beirut in wake of the invasion, would redeploy them years later, before again being forced to pull them out in 2005 after the assassination of Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

In the besieged city, I was determined to record the testimonials of influential political and security figures. I tried to obtain Arafat’s testimony, but he turned down the offer, saying he didn’t want the Palestinian people to be punished “because of his memories.”

In Tunisia, Arafat told me: “What do you want me to recount? To tell you about Sabri al-Banna (Abou Nidal), who was hosted by three Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus and Tripoli, and who was obsessed with assassinating Palestinians, not Israelis?”

“Do you want me to tell you about the so-called intifada in Fatah that was backed by Syria and funded by Libya? Or do you want me to complain about the practices of Palestinian groups that tarnished our image of resistance or led to our labeling as terrorists? I’m not saying that Fatah was faultless. We all made mistakes, but we always tried not to lose our way and lose our cause.”

“The Palestinian people have been punished a lot. They were punished for clinging on to their cause and for firing the first shot. (...) The PLO was punished for adopting a hard line and punished when it adopted a moderate approach. Do you want the Palestinian people to be punished because of my memoirs? I don’t want to open old wounds.”

“As I was leaving Beirut, a journalist asked me: ‘Where to?’ I replied: ‘To Jerusalem. We are preparing for our date in Palestine and Jerusalem. We don’t have any other place to be.’”

The KGB general and Iran

In 1980, Palestinian ambassador to Tehran and Fatah central committee member Hani al-Hassan received an urgent call to head to Beirut. Upon his arrival, Arafat told him they were headed to a meeting at the Soviet embassy. Hassan understood that he needed to voice Arafat’s views. He knew how influential the Soviets were in the Palestinian revolution. He knew of the consequences of refusing delicate Soviet proposals.

Other Fatah members at the meeting included Salah Khalaf (Abou Ayad) and Khalil al-Wazir (Abou Jihad). The Soviets were represented by General “Alexander” who was the KGB official overseeing operations in the Middle East. The insistence that Palestinian leaders, not their representatives, be present at the meeting meant that Moscow expected the talks to yield a decision.

General “Alexander” spoke about the situation in the region, especially Iran, in wake of the Soviet military invasion of Afghanistan. He said the time had come for the Palestinians to cooperate with the Soviets to facilitate the Communist Party’s control of Iran. The Soviet Union wanted to expand its power in the region and Iran was a significant prize given its geographic location and resources.

Hassan was surprised with the proposal and asked to be excused from the meeting, but Arafat refused. Hassan said he would not stand against the Iranian revolution that had “offered us several major services,” referring to its severing of Iranian-Israeli relations that were forged under the shah.

Tensions soon erupted and the Soviet general declared that the Palestinians “won’t be able to do anything without us.” Hassan replied: “If the Soviets enter Iran, then Israel’s strategic value will grow a million-fold to the West. So, don’t even think about it. For our part, we will ensure that every effort is made to form good Iranian-Soviet relations.”

Hassan believed that the meeting exposed how the Soviets dealt with the situations in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and future conflicts in these countries.

Meeting in a Soviet forest

Another significant meeting was held years earlier. In the early 1970s, head of the PFLP’s External Operations Wadie Haddad met with KGB chief Yuri Andropov in a forest on the outskirts of Moscow. The meeting was held in utmost secrecy because Haddad at the time had been planning plane hijacking operations for years. Haddad asked for weapons from the Soviets, and they were smuggled to him off the coast of Aden, Yemen.

The first high-level contacts between Moscow and the Palestinian revolution took place in 1968 at the suggestion of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser and Arafat traveled to Moscow together on a secret visit. Two years later, a Soviet envoy met with Arafat in Jordan and the relations between the Palestinians and Soviets came out to the open.

Moscow realized the importance of relations with the Palestinians so it forged ties that allowed it in a few years to wield influence in Palestinian political and security decisions. Moscow formed close ties with the Palestinian left, including the PFLP, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and leftists in the Fatah movement.

These relations led the Palestinian resistance and allied parties in Lebanon to rule out the possibility of Israel invading Beirut. It had already launched its invasion on June 6, 1982, and was advancing on the capital. On the day of the invasion, the Fatah and Lebanese National Movement met in Beirut. Present were Abou Ammar, Abou Jihad, Abou Ayad, Abou al-Walid, Secretary General of the Lebanese Communist Party George Hawi and Secretary General of the Communist Action Organization in Lebanon Mohsen Ibrahim.

They discussed the possibility that the invasion could go beyond southern Lebanon, especially with Sharon as defense minister. They never predicted, however, that the Israeli forces would advance on Beirut and reach its outskirts because Syrian troops were in the capital and any clash with the Israelis could lead to a full-scale war between them. They believed that Israel would not provoke Syria, an ally of Moscow.

They were proven wrong when the Israeli army was met with little resistance and eventually besieged Beirut. It was later revealed that the Soviets and their allies did not have information about the Israeli plans. The Syrians were also in the dark.

Meeting with Bashir Gemayel

When the Israeli forces reached the Chouf area in Mount Lebanon and appeared intent on Beirut, a secret meeting was held between Abou Ammar al-Hassan, head of the Lebanese Forces Bashir al-Gemayel and Lebanese military intelligence chief Johnny Abdo. Gemayel wanted to hold the meeting to deliver a message to Arafat that the Palestinians must lay down their arms and leave Lebanon. “I am ready to secure a safe and dignified exit. I want an immediate answer before the Israelis reach Beirut,” he said. Hassan suggested that they take their conversation to the balcony because they feared Abdo’s house would be wiretapped.

Hassan noticed how worried Gemayel appeared. He told him: “Let me speak to you frankly. I follow you and it is my duty to follow you. I know you have presidential ambitions, but you won’t achieve them this way. You were the one who paved the way for the Syrians so that they could strike the Palestinians. Now, you have brought in the Israelis so that they can strike them both.”

“At the end of this game, we will both be struck, and you will be finished. Lebanon is enticing. Neither the Israelis, nor the Syrians will pull out. You are opposed to both of them. Let me repeat, you are mistaken in thinking this is the way that will lead you to the presidency. Your odds will be better if you decide to side with us and the Lebanese National Movement.”

“Who will agree to hosting the Palestinian fighters? Jordan, Syria or others? He vowed that he will ensure that a small number of fighters would remain and they would answer to the Lebanese army. The game slipped from his hands when the Israelis reached Beirut.”

Hassan later informed Mohsen about the meeting. Mohsen then met with Arafat and Hawi. They were primarily concerned with determining whether Moscow could stop the invasion. Hawi, with his close ties to the Soviets, believed that striking the Palestinian revolution was a red line for both sides the Soviets and Communists. After a month or so, he realized that everything was permissible, and nothing was off limits. Arab countries had no way of influencing international powers.

Hawi was hoping Moscow would threaten Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. He hoped they would send a naval vessel off the coast of Beirut or at least evacuate the wounded. Soviet ambassador to Beirut Alexander Soldatov could promise nothing of the sort. Hawi kept relaying these disappointing stances to Arafat. Hawi and others could not believe that the Soviets would stand idly by as Israel invaded Lebanon.

Arafat was dealt a crushing blow during a meeting with Soldatov. The ambassador told Arafat to leave Beirut, even if he had to board an American destroyer. Arafat was incredulous and refused to leave. He would eventually relent when it appeared that the Soviets would not support him or stand against the Israelis.



US-led Troops Exit Iraq: What's Next for Pro-Iran Groups?

A giant Iraqi flag hangs off the reconstructed 12th century "Hadba" leaning minaret at the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri in the old city of Mosul on September 29, 2026 as Iraq marks the withdrawal of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition forces from the country.  (Photo by Zaid AL-OBEIDI / AFP)
A giant Iraqi flag hangs off the reconstructed 12th century "Hadba" leaning minaret at the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri in the old city of Mosul on September 29, 2026 as Iraq marks the withdrawal of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition forces from the country. (Photo by Zaid AL-OBEIDI / AFP)
TT

US-led Troops Exit Iraq: What's Next for Pro-Iran Groups?

A giant Iraqi flag hangs off the reconstructed 12th century "Hadba" leaning minaret at the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri in the old city of Mosul on September 29, 2026 as Iraq marks the withdrawal of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition forces from the country.  (Photo by Zaid AL-OBEIDI / AFP)
A giant Iraqi flag hangs off the reconstructed 12th century "Hadba" leaning minaret at the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri in the old city of Mosul on September 29, 2026 as Iraq marks the withdrawal of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition forces from the country. (Photo by Zaid AL-OBEIDI / AFP)

With the US-led anti-extremist coalition leaving Iraq, Baghdad faces mounting pressure to rein in Tehran-backed armed groups, a difficult task in a country long caught between its allies, the US and Iran.

Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, who assumed power earlier this year with the United States' blessing, has pledged that after the coalition exits on Wednesday, pro-Iran groups would hand over their weapons to the state.

But the issue has proven far more complicated than simple announcements, said AFP.

Iraq has long been a proxy battleground for the US and Iran, with each interfering in major political decisions and government formation.

The ongoing Middle East war, during which Iran-backed groups in Iraq targeted US facilities there and around the region hundreds of times, has deepened Iraq's entanglement.

- 'Tricky' -

Several senior Iraqi officials told AFP that Iran will not accept that the factions hand over their weapons, especially amid the regional war, and its officials have clearly relayed the message.

"If there's a deal between the US and Iran, I think that this whole issue becomes very easy to deal with," Iraqi political analyst Sajad Jiyad said.

But Jiyad said "Iran has been very clear that while there is a conflict going on, they cannot give up their strategic capabilities", including the Iraqi groups and "their ability to attack US interests in Iraq and the region".

It is, however, a "tricky situation", because Iran doesn't want an "unstable Iraq", he added.

"Iran's agenda is to reach a deal with the US, so that these groups will naturally reduce their visibility and activity," without giving up capabilities.

The factions also want assurances that the US won't target them before they consider surrendering their weapons.

But if no progress is forthcoming in terms of disarming these groups, then "the US is not going to make a longer-term commitment of not targeting them", he said.

It will continue on its usual paths: diplomatic and economic pressure through sanctions, and occasional strikes.

- 'Liability' -

The US-led coalition deployed to Iraq and Syria in 2014 to fight the ISIS group, which seized large swathes of both countries and committed atrocities.

Both the coalition and Tehran-backed groups fought ISIS, their common enemy.

After ISIS's defeat in Iraq in 2017, those groups demanded the withdrawal of US troops and began targeting them with drones and missiles, triggering US retaliatory strikes that killed several of their commanders over the years.

US pressure on successive Iraqi governments to disarm the factions mounted, especially after they intervened in support of Palestinians during the Gaza war in 2023, and later backed Tehran in the Middle East war.

Political analyst Jiyad said little should be expected after the coalition's pullout.

"We are not going to get disarmament... but there has to be some sort of progress and some plan," he said.

"What is probably going to happen is the process begins" towards a solution, but it will require time and "trust-building measures".

The Tehran-backed groups feel the government is unable to protect them from the US, and the government sees them as a "liability," he added.

- No plan -

While some groups said they would disarm, other powerful factions refuse to do so.

But the government "does not even have a plan" for how it is going to disarm them, a diplomatic source in Baghdad said.

Two senior politicians told AFP that Zaidi, a newcomer to politics, had repeatedly said he was ready to "confront" the groups if they don't disarm.

For weeks, tensions grew until an unannounced truce was reached, with the intervention of senior politicians who are now hoping to work out a deal.

An Iraqi official said that "the issue needs time to reassure the factions, and prevent any confrontation between Iraqi forces and the armed groups".

Kazem al-Fartoussi, spokesperson for the Kataeb Sayyid al-Shuhada armed group, said the factions don't want a confrontation with the state because "there will be no winners".

But "our weapons are precious, so we have said these weapons are in exchange for sovereignty," including the withdrawal of foreign troops and an end to American political and economic interference.

Fartoussi said the factions are in talks with the government about "regulating" their weapons, as well as their relationship with the state, but he doesn't trust the US.

For the Americans and Israelis, their objective is "nothing other than eliminating the factions, not the weapons," Fartoussi said.

If the issue is the factions' "existence", then "we reject any discussion".


Israel Obliterates South Lebanon's Architectural Heritage

The residence of Said Shahine, father of Ghaleb and Fahmi Shahine, which was completely destroyed in the city of Nabatieh (Kamel Jaber archive)
The residence of Said Shahine, father of Ghaleb and Fahmi Shahine, which was completely destroyed in the city of Nabatieh (Kamel Jaber archive)
TT

Israel Obliterates South Lebanon's Architectural Heritage

The residence of Said Shahine, father of Ghaleb and Fahmi Shahine, which was completely destroyed in the city of Nabatieh (Kamel Jaber archive)
The residence of Said Shahine, father of Ghaleb and Fahmi Shahine, which was completely destroyed in the city of Nabatieh (Kamel Jaber archive)

Daily attacks around the city of Nabatieh and the town of Kfar Rumman have not stopped the Zein family from launching work to restore “what can be restored” of the home of Youssef Bek Zein, which was damaged by intensive Israeli strikes several months ago.

Descendants of one of Nabatieh’s best-known political families see preserving their heritage as an act of defiance against Israel, which they say is erasing physical traces and memories from the land and seeking to eliminate historic homes with distinctive architecture, political family residences, and urban and historical landmarks of all kinds across South Lebanon.

During the two large-scale wars Israel waged on South Lebanon, airstrikes and demolitions wiped out dozens of heritage landmarks, including political family homes whose architecture and libraries documented periods of Jabal Amel’s political history over the past two centuries.

This photograph taken from the southern Lebanese village of Hanniyeh shows smoke rising from the site of a series of Israeli controlled explosions in the nearby village of al-Mansouri on September 28, 2026. (Photo by Kawnat HAJU / AFP)

In Nabatieh alone, Israeli bombardment razed 147 homes between 80 and 110 years old. Some had developed from houses originally built 200 years ago. They included heritage properties belonging to local political leaders, ministers and lawmakers who had played roles in Nabatieh and its surroundings over past decades.

The damage also extended to political family residences around Nabatieh, including the Asaad family home in Taybeh. Local activists say many old houses were razed along with it, including the home of Khalil Abdallah in Khiam, one of the region’s most prominent historical leaders, built in 1862.

Abdel Aziz Zein’s Home: A Cultural Role

The home of Youssef Bek Zein, heavily damaged by Israeli bombardment, is now among the last remaining heritage landmarks and architectural witnesses in the Nabatieh area following the loss of the Abdel Aziz Zein residence.

In recent years, that residence had become a cultural hub in the region. His son, Dr. Saad Zein, expanded it to host cultural and community activities.

“My family home, the Abdel Aziz Zein residence, was more than 80 years old,” Dr. Saad Zein told Asharq Al-Awsat. “An Israeli strike completely demolished the house and wiped out all its features — not only its architecture, but also its cultural role.”

The Abdel Aziz Zein residence (Saad Zein archive)

Zein said the house had served as a venue for cultural and social activities since at least 2000. He had established a small museum there documenting the history of Jabal Amel, and the house “became a cultural destination in the region.”

The residence was later expanded to include gardens and a diwaniya, a traditional reception space that is a central feature of southern Lebanese architecture. In recent years, it became known as the “Saad Zein House.”

The strike on the large residence also damaged the adjoining Zein family home. That residence had been a center of political and social leadership for more than a century. Built 150 years ago, it housed the Ottoman governor in the 19th century before ownership passed to the Zein family and Youssef Bek Zein took up residence there.

Even the Family Tombs Were Hit

Zein entered parliament after the proclamation of Greater Lebanon in 1924, and his family became one of Jabal Amel’s most prominent political families during the last century. Its parliamentary representation continued uninterrupted until 2018.

“The Youssef Bek Zein residence was severely damaged. The roof, courtyard and family tombs were hit, including Youssef Bek’s grave,” Dr. Saad Zein stated.

“We are now working intensively and quickly to restore the house so it can be usable again and remain a witness to a political era, given that the family is one of Jabal Amel’s founding families and has maintained a cultural, developmental and social presence — a role that continues with me and my uncle.”

Zein stressed that the targeting of political homes and urban and historical landmarks “aims to erase traces and memories from the land in order to sever the Lebanese people’s connection to their homes, land and heritage.”

Deliberate and Systematic Destruction

Cultural and social figures in Nabatieh broadly agree that what occurred during the wars of 2024 and 2026 amounted to the “systematic destruction of memory without any actual justification.”

They argue that the concentrated bombardment and leveling of longstanding family homes historically associated with political positions opposed to Hezbollah contradicts the Israeli military’s assertion that its strikes target only Hezbollah facilities and headquarters.

One particularly notable case was the leveling of the home of former lawmaker Habib Sadek, founder of the Cultural Council for South Lebanon, in Kfour, west of Nabatieh.

Sadek was among South Lebanon’s best-known political and cultural activists. He served in parliament in 1992 and was one of the most prominent chroniclers of Israeli violations in the south since the 1940s. He encouraged the publication of works sponsored by the Cultural Council and combined a political career with his work as a writer, poet and thinker.

Manuscripts Documenting Violations

Kamel Jaber, head of the Cultural Council’s Nabatieh branch, told Asharq Al-Awsat that after Sadek’s home in Khiam was demolished in 1977, the area remained under occupation until 2000 and the family was forced to live between Beirut and Nabatieh.

“The family was determined to build a house outside the city resembling the homes of southerners — meaning it would have a garden surrounded by pine trees, with roses blooming in it,” Jaber said.

“Sadek paid particular attention to a diwaniya on the lower floor of the house, where he kept many of the manuscripts he had presented through various radio programs, as well as writings from the 1960s and 1970s. He also created extensive libraries in the diwaniya containing books, manuscripts and the rest of his cultural legacy.”

Jaber said Sadek was “one of the most prominent cultural figures who wrote and published works and books about the south, documenting violations and various forms of Israeli occupation, whether related to ambitions over water, geography or other issues, and produced studies showing the harm inflicted on the south through occupation.”

From that perspective, Jaber said the targeting of the house “was a targeting of Habib Sadek, his role, legacy and career.” He ruled out any security-related reason for striking the house, which he said was “closed and checked daily by a caretaker.”

Erasing Architectural and Political Heritage

The devastation is viewed locally as part of an effort to eliminate Nabatieh’s urban, architectural and political heritage.

After the 2024 war, cultural figures in the city launched an initiative, involving civil society groups in cooperation with the municipality, to document heritage buildings lost to Israeli bombardment. The survey was updated just two weeks before this article was written.

It found that 147 homes had been completely razed, leaving only a very small number of such buildings standing.

During the 2026 war, what remained of the Fadl al-Fadl house in the Manshieh district was demolished. The house was built late in the last century and designed by an Egyptian architect. General Gouraud visited it in the 1920s during a trip to the south while serving as French high commissioner in Lebanon.

The home of former lawmaker Mohammed Bek al-Fadl, meanwhile, lost large sections after strikes hit its surroundings in 2024. The house is 102 years old. Jaber, who works to document local memory through a civil society organization in Nabatieh, said its new owner had decided to restore it.

The home of Mohammed Bek al-Fadl (Kamel Jaber archive)

Erasing Cultural Memory

Nabatieh residents see the campaign as targeting architecture that embodies the area’s cultural heritage and its social, political and urban memory.

In Nabatieh, Israeli strikes completely leveled the residence of the late minister and lawmaker Rafik Shahine, as well as the home of Said Shahine, father of lawmakers and ministers Ghaleb and Fahmi Shahine.

Other buildings lost in the strikes had been regarded as architectural masterpieces, including the palace of Dr. Bahjat al-Mirza, considered one of the city’s most beautiful homes because its facades featured carvings in stone. Mirza was among Nabatieh’s first physicians in the 20th century to open his home to provide medical care to residents.

Mahmoud Shahine’s house was also razed in 2026. The building had served as a school during the last century and was among the houses constructed on the remains of older homes built some 200 years ago.

On Sept. 6, 2026, an Israeli strike leveled the home of Dr. Adnan Sharif, a century-old architectural landmark.

The home of Dr. Adnan Sharif (Kamel Jaber archive)

The home of former lawmaker Anwar Sabbah, father of Sadek Sabbah, director of Sabbah Brothers television production company, was also demolished. Built on a hill in Nabatieh in the early 1990s, it was separate from the family residence in the city, which remained standing.

Strikes also razed Ghandour Hospital, one of the main hospitals that provided medical services to the Nabatieh area during the period of occupation beginning in the 1980s.

A War on History

Israeli strikes did not only target houses and mansions but also hit archaeological and heritage sites across the south.

A market dating to the Mamluk era in Nabatieh was heavily bombarded, leaving part of it in ruins. The capital of an ancient column was dislodged at a UNESCO-listed site in the southern coastal city of Tyre.

A religious site known as “Shamoun al-Safa,” visited by both Muslims and Christians in the southern town of Shamaa, was also razed, as was Shamaa’s Crusader castle.

There is also no information about the condition of “Ain al-Fawqa” in Taybeh after the area surrounding it in the town square was devastated. The water collection spring was built in a spiral form and contains architectural features resembling examples from the Roman and Byzantine periods. It was restored during the Ottoman era.

Culture Minister Ghassan Salame told Reuters last month that historic towns outside the designated area were pummeled with airstrikes, including Tyre and Nabatieh.

Heavy bombing hit the town of Tebnin, prompting fears that its Crusader fortress was also damaged, Salame said.

"Heritage is not only Roman and Phoenician antiquities,” he added. “Heritage is also historic buildings, archaeological sites, and buildings with a cultural function."

He expressed concern that the Israeli campaign could completely erase centuries of Lebanese history.

UNESCO, meanwhile, said in a statement that it was concerned about the situation in Tyre, a World Heritage site under the agency’s enhanced protection.

It added it was deeply concerned by reports of damage to Shamaa Castle in South Lebanon and fighting near Beaufort Castle, denouncing what it described as “unlawful attacks on cultural property.”


'Currently Impossible': North Korea Defections in Freefall

Visitors look towards North Korea, which has worked to seal off links to the outside world. Lillian SUWANRUMPHA / AFP
Visitors look towards North Korea, which has worked to seal off links to the outside world. Lillian SUWANRUMPHA / AFP
TT

'Currently Impossible': North Korea Defections in Freefall

Visitors look towards North Korea, which has worked to seal off links to the outside world. Lillian SUWANRUMPHA / AFP
Visitors look towards North Korea, which has worked to seal off links to the outside world. Lillian SUWANRUMPHA / AFP

A building-sized North Korean flag waves from a tower on the de facto border with South Korea, marking territory that experts say has become nearly impossible to escape.

The combined total of North Koreans to reach South Korea in the past six years is less than the number that typically defected each year for decades -- and appears to be declining further in 2026, said AFP.

The main cause is leader Kim Jong Un's aim to preserve his family dynasty by sealing the country off from the outside, keeping people in and information out, experts say.

"As I understand it, bringing family members directly from North Korea is currently impossible," 29-year-old Chae Yoon-seo, who fled in 2019, told AFP.

She swam across a river into China at night with a smuggler's help, and travelled through Laos, Vietnam and Thailand before finally flying to South Korea.

Defections to the South hit a peak of more than 2,900 in 2009 and stayed well above 1,000 per year for the next decade.

But there were just 63 in the first half of this year -- down by over a third from the same period in 2025, said Seoul's Unification Ministry.

- 'Soviet-style border' -

Arrivals have fluctuated over the decades, but plunged sharply during the Covid pandemic when many nations shut their borders.

A key change in North Korea, however, started years before.

After taking power in 2011, Kim began restricting the informal trade and migration links along the roughly 1,415-kilometer (880-mile) northern border with China.

In addition to being an economic lifeline, the Chinese border region has also been the first step in most defectors' escapes.

The long frontier was relatively porous, unlike the heavily mined, fenced and surveilled Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that serves as the Koreas' de facto border.

Along the boundary with China, Kim's government has erected fences and installed cameras as well as strips of sand that preserve the footprints of anyone who crosses.

"North Koreans built a real Soviet-style border security system," said Andrei Lankov, an expert on the North at Kookmin University in Seoul.

Beijing has helped too, said Lankov, noting China's preference to keep the status quo of the Kim dynasty by opposing potential instability from defectors or their supporters.

As part of its efforts, China reportedly has put in place hundreds of facial recognition cameras, noted Rachel Minyoung Lee, senior fellow with the Stimson Center's 38 North.

She added that Beijing also added more patrol boats and new or planned deportation facilities along its northeastern border.

- Ousted, killed or exiled -

The roughly 34,500 defectors to reach the South since 1998 are a fraction of North Korea's 26.6 million people, UN figures show, but the plunging number of escapes has consequences.

"Defectors are the main source of information about the North," said Fyodor Tertitsky, lecturer at Seoul's Korea University, noting both South Korean intelligence and researchers interrogate them.

Though some people still do get out.

Defector Gyuri Kang's 2023 escape by boat with her mother and aunt -- across the maritime border with the South, an extremely rare feat -- was a "miracle", she told a UN hearing.

She is also a case in point for why North Korea has made great efforts to seal itself off.

Kang noted the influence of South Korean dramas smuggled in on USB drives, finding them "so refreshing and more credible than North Korea state propaganda".

"North Korean authorities are keenly aware of the impact of outside media," she said.

In 2020, North Korea made possessing foreign media a crime punishable by years-long forced labor terms -- and potential death sentences for large-scale distribution, according to Amnesty International.

Lankov, from Kookmin University, said external information is the greatest threat to the long-term survival of North Korea's leadership.

"If they let their people interact with the outside world, they are highly likely to be overthrown, and maybe killed or driven into exile," he added.

Chae, the defector, said her hope was that the North's isolated people are not one day simply forgotten by the outside world.

"These days, there are a lot of cynical reactions on helping other countries, so I am a bit worried that one day, interest in North Korean human rights might fade away as well," she added.